BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill [Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [Lords], which were originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 21 January 2007, may have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).— (The  First Deputy  Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Thursday 22 January.

Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made , and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill, which were originally introduced in this House in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, may have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills ).—(The  First Deputy  Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Thursday 22 January.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Marine Environmental Protection

Anne Moffat: What steps his Department is taking to improve the protection of the marine environment.

Hilary Benn: The Government want a marine environment that is clean, safe, productive and biologically diverse. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill will play a significant part in achieving this, along with other steps that we are taking, including action on sustainable fisheries management and on achieving good environmental status for our seas under the marine strategy framework directive.

Anne Moffat: With reference to the progress of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, which represents a sea change, is my right hon. Friend aware of the wonderful coastline in my constituency, starting with a five-star, award-winning seabird centre in North Berwick, which is educational and protective and does all the things that the Government want to do to look after the marine life in the River Forth?

Hilary Benn: I am very pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the centre that she mentioned. The Bill has started its passage in the other place and we look forward to its coming here. There will be much to discuss and debate, but there is widespread support for the legislation. It is groundbreaking, it is important, and we need to get it on the statute book and get on with the work.

Mark Williams: The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of marine sustainability. Does he acknowledge the concerns expressed by many environmental groups and local fishermen about the extent to which licences are being issued for industrial scallop dredging, and the damaging effect that that has both on the seabed and on future fish stocks, not least in my area, in Cardigan bay, which is protected as a special area of conservation? Does he regard the arrangements in the Bill as robust enough to meet the challenges brought to us in our constituencies?

Hilary Benn: I am indeed aware of those concerns. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the action that we have taken in relation to scallop dredging in the Fal and Helford special area of conservation, and of the decision taken last year in respect of Lyme bay, which was very significant. That illustrates the Government's determination to take the right decisions to provide conservation where it is needed, and the Bill provides the framework to do that. In the end, all these things must be balanced, but one of the purposes of introducing the Bill is to allow for the designation of marine conservation zones. The two steps that we have already taken with regard to scallop dredging will give comfort to those who are concerned about the Government's willingness, in the right circumstances, to act.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend may remember that a few weeks ago he visited my constituency. During that visit, I had arranged a meeting with a number of leading Scottish environmental non-governmental organisations. They are very pleased with the way he listened to their concerns and has come up with a sensible division of responsibilities for nature conservation between the UK and Scottish Governments. What steps will the Department take to ensure that there continues to be effective co-ordination between the Scottish and UK Government responsibilities in this area?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that. I recollect saying to his environmental groups on that occasion that we would listen to what was said as a result of the consultation. They will have seen how we amended the draft Bill when it was published and introduced into Parliament. I am absolutely determined that we continue to build on the arrangements that we have put in place to ensure partnership between the different parts of the devolved system. One of the things that came across clearly in the consultation was the desire for one coherent framework. The discussions that we have had with the devolved Administrations have allowed us to put in place a structure which I think will work, and I am committed to it.

Elfyn Llwyd: Further to the important point made by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), the Minister will know that the destruction caused by scallop dredging may last for 10, 12 or 14 years. It is nothing short of vandalism. Will he contrast the needs of those fishermen with the crofting that goes on both in Scotland and in north Wales on the Llyn peninsula, where farmers supplement their income by sustainable fishing methods? Will he ensure that their interests are catered for in the interests of good, sustainable fisheries for the future?

Hilary Benn: It is important that there should be local discussion and local input. In the end, it is about balancing all these things. However, as I said in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), we must have a framework that allows us to take such decisions; obviously, the Welsh Assembly Government would have responsibilities in this particular case. A balance has to be struck. The Marine and Coastal Access Bill and the support of the devolved Administrations provide the framework within which we can try to deal better with the problems, and that is why there is such widespread support for the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: Does the Secretary of State agree that one thing that will not improve the marine environment is EU Commission regulation article 47, which relates to EU monitoring of recreational fisheries? It seeks to take away precious quota from our professional fishermen and heap a horrendous bureaucratic burden on the 1.5 million sea anglers, who contribute £1 billion to the economy. Will the Secretary of State join me and the newly formed Angling Trust and use every ounce of his strength to reject that ridiculous proposal?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will meet representatives of the Angling Trust shortly to discuss the matter. In the end, it is important that we strike a balance, on that issue and others. We are determined to ensure that there are opportunities for sustainable fisheries and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's achievement in the fisheries negotiations just before Christmas. Such things are difficult to balance, but we achieved a reasonable outcome.

Animal Diseases/Contaminated Feed

Michael Jack: What steps his Department plans to take to ensure that cattle in England are protected from animal diseases and contaminated feed in 2009.

Jane Kennedy: The Government are funding scanning surveillance to detect the emergence of new or exotic diseases in cattle. The diagnosis and disease investigation service is subsidised and offered to farmers through their private vets, and the analysis of samples is delivered by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. There are also projects targeted at specific diseases. DEFRA collaborates with the Food Standards Agency, Animal Health and the Veterinary Laboratories Agency to manage contaminated animal feed incidents.

Michael Jack: The Minister's answer contains some reassurance, but she will be aware of the devastating effect of the feed contamination in Ireland just before Christmas on the whole of that country's pork meat industry—large amounts of product had to be destroyed. What specific steps have been taken to minimise the risk of such an event in the United Kingdom, and does the Minister agree that what happened emphasises the importance of better product labelling to enable us to enhance traceability if such an incident were to occur here?

Jane Kennedy: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I am in active dialogue with my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for public health. We need to learn the lessons from that recent incident to make sure that our procedures are as robust as we believe they are. However, the assurance scheme that protects British-produced pork—bacon, ham and other pig products—has really proved its worth in the past month. Consumers can be assured that when they purchase pork, bacon or ham that bears the British quality standard mark agreed with the British Pig Executive and which applies throughout the whole food chain, they are buying a product derived from animals that have been fed, reared and processed to the highest standards of animal welfare and food safety.

Russell Brown: This is not just an issue about the protection of livestock in England; it applies right across the UK. Will the Minister assure the House that she regularly discusses issues such as animal disease and contaminated feed with her colleagues in the devolved Administrations?

Jane Kennedy: Yes, indeed. As my hon. Friend would expect, I am very interested in working collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. The recent report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has made recommendations on the pork industry, referring to the Scottish taskforce for pig products. I want to learn from the Scottish experience, and I will be in touch with ministerial colleagues in the other authorities.

Tim Farron: Given that the Government were essentially responsible for the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2007, surely they have an even greater responsibility to farmers, consumers and farmers' livestock to protect against other animal diseases, including bluetongue? There is a vaccine against bluetongue strain 8, but not against other strains of the disease. Serotype 1 of the disease was discovered in Blackpool less than two months ago and is present elsewhere in western Europe. Given the devastating impact of an outbreak of bluetongue, not only on animal welfare but on farm incomes, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that we are protected against other strains of the disease?

Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we are monitoring the situation very closely. Our veterinary and animal health authorities conduct very strict surveillance. I am not aware of any circulating bluetongue disease found in the UK in 2008. The vaccination uptake previously was high in the south and the east of England, and the Pirbright experts believe that this was effective in controlling the BTV8 outbreak. We are not complacent, however—we know that we must keep all this work under very close review. We are conducting post-import tests for all bluetongue stereotypes. Every type of bluetongue can be detected through routine testing. We are urging the industry to consider the risks and to check the health and vaccination status of animals when sourcing any animals from within the UK or, indeed, from abroad.

Mary Creagh: Animal feed is one very important part of the food chain, but the focus and function of animals and farms in passing on manure to allotment holders is another vital part of the food chain. I have been contacted by allotment holders in Wakefield who have had farmers selling them manure that is not pure but has been contaminated with chemicals. What has my right hon. Friend's Department been doing to ensure the minimisation of that and to ensure that people who want to grow their own do not end up with distorted carrots and parsnips?

Jane Kennedy: I am very interested in the case that my hon. Friend has brought to the House, and I would want to have the opportunity to look into it in detail. The Environment Agency will be closely at work on the detail of this matter, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also following it closely. We are aware that a particular product has been withdrawn. I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend, or if she would care to write to me with the details of the representations that she has received, I will be happy to look into them.

Richard Benyon: The people at the forefront in combating disease in our animals are the institutes of animal health. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the scientists and other staff who work at the Institute for Animal Health at Compton in my constituency and give them some assurance that the future of the institute in that location will be confirmed?

Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Gentleman will know, no decisions have yet been taken regarding the institute and the other organisations with which it works. I am more than happy to join Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the work of those people in his constituency, who do extremely important work. I hope to visit their organisation in the near future to learn about their work.

Surface Water Drainage Charges

Brian Iddon: What assessment he has made of the effects of the new surface water drainage charges on sports and social clubs; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend will know that it is for Ofwat, as the independent economic regulator of the water industry, to approve water companies' charging schemes. However, to give him some reassurance, I can say that we are very aware of the problem of affordability faced by some customers as a result of the switch to site area charging for surface water drainage, and we are actively looking at what can be done.

Brian Iddon: I am grateful for that answer. Throughout the north-west, sports and social clubs are receiving from United Utilities water rate bills that include a new surface area water drainage charge that is resulting in an increase of about 400 per cent. in the three-year transitional period. In discussing this matter with Ofwat, will my hon. Friend remind it of the guidance that was given following the passage of the Water Industry Act 1999? It said:
	"It would be inappropriate to charge all customers as if they were businesses."

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is worth reiterating the advice issued by the then Secretary of State in 2000, which said of that guidance:
	"those making similar demands on services should be charged on the same basis... surface water drainage charges"
	for non-household customers
	"should be set in a way that is sensitive to the actual use of the service by different premises. Premises with large grounds, such as burial grounds, schools, hospitals"—
	and playing fields—
	"may have a large proportion of their land not draining to a public sewer. Companies should be prepared to set their charges...accordingly".
	It is worth reiterating that advice on the guidance. As I say, we are actively considering what may be done.

Nicholas Winterton: I fully support every word uttered by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Will the Minister go further than he so far has in dealing with this grotesquely unfair charge, which could put a number of social clubs, sporting clubs and—yes, I shall mention them—churches in grave financial difficulty? I hope he will indicate that he will approach Ofwat and ask it to review the whole basis of the charge. It is a licence for the water companies, particularly United Utilities, to print money, and we want to stop it. It is unfair. Will he give a firmer assurance about the action that the Government will take?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Once again, I thank all hon. Members who have raised this issue, which is vital for their constituents and for small organisations, churches, sports clubs and so on in their areas. I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman and others just how seriously we take this matter, and that we will examine what can be done. I cannot go further than that today, but we are actively considering it.
	It is worth stating that Ofwat's approach is that in principle, site area-based charging is overall the fairest means of charging for surface water drainage. However, the charge relates only to areas draining into a public sewer from impermeable surfaces such as the roofs of buildings or car parks. Grassy areas such as sports fields, burial grounds and so on will not be liable to charges. Ofwat is making that clear to companies, and I glad to restate it today.

Ann Cryer: At the risk of repeating what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said, may I focus on the application of the new surface water charges to ancient cathedrals and churches with huge roof spaces? They will be adversely affected, and some are already struggling. I had better declare an interest: I am an honorary lay canon of Bradford cathedral.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend. I am more than happy, on the basis of the comments that have been made today and other representations that have been made, to examine individual cases. It is worth my saying also that if a customer is of the view that he or she has been charged for permeable areas, in the first instance they should raise the matter with the water company, bearing in mind the guidance that is on record and has been reiterated today. Failing that, they should raise it with the Consumer Council for Water. I reassure Members that we are taking concerns seriously and actively considering what can be done.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister will be aware that the Government rightly applaud the work of faith-based and other voluntary sector groups such as sports clubs, the guides and the scouts. The gross increase in charges that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) pointed out could not come to such volunteer-based organisations at a worse time than this time of economic hardship. Will the Minister intervene and ask what economic and financial impact assessment has been done and whether it was done during or before the economic crisis? May we please have a moratorium on the charges until such an assessment has been carried out?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I cannot offer the hon. Lady a moratorium on the charges, but I can assure her that as part of our examination of what is currently going on and our undertaking to review how the charges are rolled out, we will take into consideration the factors that she has mentioned, including the economic impact.
	This is an opportune moment to say that Ofwat is encouraging churches and other customers to double-check their chargeable area, to ensure that those who are entitled to a lower bill by virtue of a small permeable area are receiving one. I have been made aware of instances where that has not happened, so I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter.

Air Quality

Ben Chapman: What recent discussions his Department has had with the Environment Agency on the protection of air quality.

Hilary Benn: My officials meet with the Environment Agency on a regular basis to discuss air quality and progress in meeting emission limits.

Ben Chapman: What comfort can my right hon. Friend give my constituents in Eastham, who are faced with the possible construction of a Biossence gasification plant and an Agri Energy tallow plant, that if those projects go ahead they will continue to enjoy clean and safe air, and that any installations will be appropriately monitored?

Hilary Benn: I understand that Biossence Ltd held pre-application discussions with the Environment Agency last March. It expressed the intention to apply for a permit under the environmental permitting regulations. If it does, there must be statutory consultation, and in the end the Environment Agency decides on applications, either granting the permit with conditions or refusing it. In making any application, an operator needs to cover various matters, including satisfactory environmental management of the installation, adequate monitoring and compliance with EU directives and other requirements. I hope that that offers him and his constituents some reassurance.

James Gray: How much harder will it be to achieve air quality objectives if the 222,000 extra flights a year which will result from the third runway at Heathrow go ahead? Will the Secretary of State outline the extent to which he wholeheartedly gives his passionate commitment and support to the third runway at Heathrow?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman must be a little more patient because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement later today. To answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Government have always made it clear that our air quality and noise targets must be met before any expansion can go ahead.

Barry Sheerman: In his discussions with the Environment Agency, will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the public need to know that all our decisions on air quality are based on good science? In the past, the Environment Agency has listened too much to Greenpeace and other campaigners about, for example, energy for waste. The air quality is perfectly good, EU regulations are fine and the debate requires science, not passion.

Hilary Benn: I am a great believer—I am sure all hon. Members are—in science, facts, information and effective monitoring so that we can make the right decisions. Science of course informs the limits that domestic and European legislation have put in place. We must recognise that there has been real progress in the past 30 years in improving air quality in the country. However, there is some way to go on some forms of pollution. It is a genuine problem because the pollution we still have reduces average life expectancy by about seven to eight months. That is why we must keep up the progress.

Greg Hands: The Secretary of State has a reputation for being quietly effective, but he lives in west London so he understands the impact that a 46 per cent. increase in Heathrow capacity will have on the environment of my constituents and others across that area. On Heathrow expansion, has he been defending Londoners at the Cabinet table, or has his reputation for quietness extended to silence on this occasion?

Hilary Benn: I am not known for my silence, and I have made it clear that my responsibility as Environment Secretary is to ensure that the Government's air quality and noise targets are met. When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to hear the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport later, he will find the answer to his question.

John Grogan: May I ask my right hon. Friend once again whether Government approval for the third runway at Heathrow would make it easier or harder to meet the air quality standards? The House will be interested in his views.

Hilary Benn: As I have already said in answer to the first question on the subject, the Government have made it clear that any decision on expansion must be subject to our meeting our targets for air quality and noise. That is essential. As I have said to other hon. Members, if my hon. Friend waits a little longer, he will learn from the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport how that will be given effect.

Peter Ainsworth: The Department has made something of a habit of wasting taxpayers' money through paying expensive fines for failing to deliver its targets and for serial incompetence. The impending threat of further punishment from the EU for failing to meet air quality standards is only the latest example. The Olympic Delivery Authority in east London stands accused of doing little or nothing to fulfil its promises to cut air pollution from construction. What is the Secretary of State doing about that?

Hilary Benn: I know that those who are working on the construction of the Olympics are conscious of the need to try to ensure that it is done in the most environmentally friendly way. On the substance of the question, we are currently not meeting the targets for the two pollutants PM10 and nitrogen dioxide. However, we are not unique in that. If the hon. Gentleman considers the rest of the EU, he will find many other countries that do not meet the requirements. That is why provision was made in last year's revision to the directive for member states to apply for more time to do so. As I have already said, it is likely that we will need to apply for more time to meet the requirements on PM10 and nitrogen dioxide.

Peter Ainsworth: The answer, then, is not a lot. Let me join those over in west London who have already done this and ask the Secretary of State exactly how a third runway at Heathrow will help to cut air pollution. Will he confirm that, as a result of the statement that we will hear later today, the Government's decision will cause millions of people to face blight, pollution, deteriorating air quality and noise, will massively affect the natural environment and affect people's well-being? He is the Environment Secretary and we want to hear his view. It is no good hiding behind the latest statement. He has, to his credit, been notably silent in his enthusiasm for expanding Heathrow, but clearly he has little clout. Has he perhaps considered as a last resort joining Airplot, the organisation that is safeguarding land at the airport? That might be his only way of getting a share of the action.

Hilary Benn: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment, and in response I simply say that I have said throughout that my responsibility is to ensure that if there is to be any expansion—he, like other hon. and right hon. Members, will have to be a bit more patient—it will be subject to the Government's being able to demonstrate that we will meet the air quality and noise targets that we have set. If he just waits a little longer, he will see how the Government intend to ensure that we fulfil those promises.

Fishermen (Assistance with Aid Applications)

Anne McGuire: What assistance is available for fishermen applying for European fisheries fund aid for new nets and modifications to existing gear necessary to meet the new conservation measures agreed at the European Fisheries Council.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In response to my right hon. Friend's question, I am pleased to confirm that funding is indeed available, under both axis 1 and axis 3 of the European fisheries fund, for vessel owners to change to more selective gear. Applicants should first make contact with the fisheries department in their operational area for direct advice on application procedures.

Anne McGuire: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I would also like to put on record my recognition of the robust leadership that he gave at the recent Fisheries Council, when some of the Commission's more outrageous proposals, including the closure of the west coast fishing grounds, were challenged and changed. I only regret that his Scottish fisheries counterpart did not more generously recognise the role that he played. He has identified funding and he will be aware that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is looking to unlock funding for intelligent gear and nets. I hope he will co-operate with the Scottish Government to maximise such funding, because any trials piloted in Scotland will have a benefit across the whole of the UK fishing fleet.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for her warm words about what was a tough but good outcome from the fisheries negotiations. I am pleased that last year we launched the EFF, with £100 million for UK fisheries right across the UK to improve their sustainability. I will be working alongside others, including Scottish fisheries colleagues and the Scottish Executive, to ensure that there is good use of those funds to support the sustainable use of fisheries. To echo her comments, I am particularly pleased that as part of the negotiations we managed to save the livelihoods of people on the west coast of Scotland.

Alistair Carmichael: If ever there were an issue where good, effective working relations between the Minister and Richard Lochhead in Edinburgh were so important, this is surely it. May I urge the Minister to remain engaged with the fishing industry itself as the new technical measures are rolled out? He will be aware that serious concerns were expressed by those parts of the fleet that operated on the west of Scotland about the suitability of some of the early measures. Those concerns must not be forgotten now that the deal is done.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes absolutely the right points. I intend to continue close engagement, both with the Scottish Executive and with fishermen on the ground, because there is a level of local expertise and knowledge that has really helped us in the negotiations and which will have to help us, in what will be a challenging year, to deliver sustainable fisheries. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I will remain engaged at all levels, and I will, I hope, be visiting the west coast of Scotland in the near future.

Water Charges

David Evennett: What recent discussions he has had with Ofwat on water prices.

Hilary Benn: I met the chairman and chief executive of Ofwat on 16 December to discuss the 2009 review of water price limits, covering the period 2010 to 2015.

David Evennett: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, and I note the response about clubs that his Minister gave earlier. However, I would like to ask what the Government are doing to reduce the burden of water bills on domestic households by tackling other factors that affect the price of water, such as the non-payment of bills, which leads to those who do pay their bills subsidising those who do not.

Hilary Benn: That was one of the issues that I discussed in the meeting to which I referred. It is important that water companies are able to collect the payments that are due, recognising that in the current economic circumstances some people have genuine difficulty in paying their bills. I attach particular importance, as does Ofwat, in taking final decisions about the price review and its impact on bills between 2010 and 2015, to the question of affordability. Like many things in life, it is a question of balance, as it is also necessary to take further action on reducing leakage and improving some environmental problems, particularly those relating to the Thames area, United Utilities and some other parts of the country.

David Drew: What recent representations he has received on the rate at which charges for water are applied to schools, churches and voluntary organisations; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Secretary of State has received a range of representations from various groups regarding surface water drainage charges. As I said in response to an earlier question, the Government are aware of the issue of affordability raised by the switch to site area charging, and we are actively considering what can be done.

David Drew: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply—obviously, I heard the exchange on Question 3, asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Strong representations are being made and it would be good to hear whether they are reaching the Minister's door. The problem has been around for 10 years—I read a debate from 1999 in which the current Home Secretary raised the issue of the potential fallout from changes in water charges. Is it not about time that we told Ofwat that its proposals are wrong, and that organisations should be properly protected from such excessive increases?

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is right that the issue has been around for some time. I reiterated earlier the advice that the former Secretary of State gave in 2000, which is important to note. I reassure my hon. Friend that we will not leave the issue lying. We are aware of the concerns, and the Secretary of State and I are actively considering what can be done.

Topical Questions

Kerry McCarthy: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Hilary Benn: The Department's responsibility is to enable us all to live within our environmental means. I inform the House that the Rural Payments Agency has now made full single payment scheme payments to 78 per cent. of farmers, which amounts to 67.4 per cent. of the estimated total fund. As the House will be aware, the RPA's target is to make 75 per cent. of SPS 2008 payments by value by the end of this month, and 90 per cent. by the end of March.

Kerry McCarthy: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Earlier, we rightly discussed the importance of protecting consumers by ensuring adequate food safety standards in the meat industry, but it is equally important to protect animal welfare. Does my right hon. Friend support the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in its "Rooting for pigs" campaign to ensure better animal welfare standards within the pig industry?

Jane Kennedy: Yes. A set of labelling definitions, such as "free range" or "barn grown", agreed between the RSPCA and the UK pig industry, would be extremely powerful and command much public support. I prefer a voluntary agreement to the imposition of more legislation, and I welcome the good progress made so far. We are close to agreement between all the parties, including the supermarkets, on a set of assurance scheme criteria. All of us who enjoy pork and bacon will welcome such a labelling scheme. It will allow us to exercise an informed choice and to support our farmers, particularly in delivering higher standards of welfare.

Roger Williams: The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be aware of bids by water companies outside Wales to supply customers inside Wales, particularly in a development in his constituency known as Valleywood. Will he meet me to discuss the important issues raised by that attempt?

Huw Irranca-Davies: As the hon. Gentleman knows, elements of water policy in Wales are devolved, but the regulatory regime remains with Westminster. On that basis, I am more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Lyn Brown: In November I welcomed the announcement of spending on the Prescott lock in my constituency, but rumours abound that the Olympic legacy of usage, leisure and working of the Bow back waters is currently under threat. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss this issue, which is important to my constituents?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend, not least because she has been a tireless advocate of regeneration in relation to the Olympics and her own communities.
	I visited Prescott lock recently. We were fortunate enough to be in a position to allocate £2 million to its development, and to ensure—this is relevant to an earlier question—that construction materials for the site were delivered on our canal network, in which the Government are investing.
	As I have said, I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend, because I think that we have a good news story to tell.

Andrew Pelling: Does the Minister concur with the recent finding of the Advertising Standards Authority that biofuels should not be described as sustainable?

Hilary Benn: I know that the authority reached that decision recently, and I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman in further detail. Obviously the judgment on advertising is one for the authority to make. As for the Government's policy, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the review conducted by Ed Gallagher last year, which examined precisely this question. What the Government have said throughout is that we need to be sure that biofuels are sustainable. We need to consider both the direct impact, in connection with which a comparison can be made with the petrol and diesel that they might replace, and the more complicated issue of the indirect effect. The British Government have been pressing strongly in Europe for sustainability standards that can give the public confidence that biofuels are indeed sustainable.

David Kidney: Does this week's vote on pesticides in the European Parliament mean that the United Kingdom Government have lost the argument on control of existing pesticides, or will there still be the possibility of insisting on a full impact assessment before any change in established practices is forced on British farmers? Should we not make decisions about such changes on the basis of the best possible evidence?

Hilary Benn: I entirely agree, and I have been making the same point for a very long time. Indeed, I have asked the European Commission for a full impact assessment, but none has been forthcoming. As I have said publicly, this is not a very good basis on which to make decisions. If you are asked to sign up to something, it kind of helps if you know what it is that you are signing up to.
	I must be frank with the House. I regret that there do not appear to be enough other member states that share the concern that we have expressed so forcefully. We will of course use the possibility that exists in the final shape of the proposals to seek derogations where they are necessary, but there is a fundamental principle here. A balance must be struck. We take the protection of public health extremely seriously, but we must also enable farmers to protect their crops so that we can grow the food that we need. We must make decisions on the basis of good evidence and sound science, and I am sorry that that has not been done on this occasion.

Andrew Stunell: Will the Secretary of State agree to hold an urgent meeting with United Kingdom paper manufacturers to listen to their suggestions for reviving the international waste paper recycling market, the state of which is threatening many local authority schemes that are very important to our sustainability profile?

Jane Kennedy: I am very happy to offer the meeting that the hon. Gentleman has suggested. I acknowledge the concerns that exist in the paper recycling industry, and I am more than happy to keep the door open for him and any constituents whom he may wish to bring.

Michael Jack: Today's report on deer, and the fact that we now have a second reservoir of bovine TB, emphasise the importance of further action. Can the Minister explain why, by the end of October last year, 4,500 tests remained to be carried out? What steps is she taking to remedy the situation, in light of the continuing and growing concerns over this cattle disease?

Jane Kennedy: I acknowledge that bovine TB is our biggest endemic animal health issue. Working to eradicate this terrible disease is at the top of my agenda, given the devastating impact that it has.
	We have a zero tolerance policy on overdue tests. We have pre-movement tests for cattle moving from high-risk herds, and extended use of the gamma interferon test. We are also actively pursuing the future use of vaccination. However, we need to consider further measures with the industry, and that is exactly the aim of the new bovine TB eradication group.

David Chaytor: On air quality, although concern is currently understandably focused on Heathrow and London, will the Secretary of State look into air quality in Greater Manchester? Following the failure of the transport referendum, there is now a big vacuum in public transport policy in Greater Manchester and there are huge issues in relation to worsening air quality. Will the Secretary of State discuss this with his counterpart at the Department for Transport and with the Environment Agency?

Hilary Benn: Yes, I certainly will, because as my hon. Friend rightly points out, air quality limits are currently being exceeded in several parts of the country. The principal problem is road traffic, and we set out the steps we propose to take in the air quality strategy published last year. I have already pointed out to the House that we will very probably have to apply to the Commission for further time to meet the targets; if it is to grant us further time, we will have to set out to its satisfaction in those applications the further steps we intend to take to meet the targets. This is a responsibility of the Government, and I take it very seriously, but it is also a responsibility of those who can influence questions of traffic management in our big towns and cities across the country.

Philip Hollobone: Light-emitting diode—or LED—lighting technology is super-efficient: it generates just 5 per cent. of the wattage of a normal bulb, generates very little heat and has no mercury. Will the Secretary of State discuss with the Carbon Trust whether it can promote that technology, rather than the intermediate energy-efficient technology it is currently promoting?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to take up that suggestion, and I will do so. That is an important technology, which is still in a state of evolution. In the fight against climate change and the effort to reduce carbon emissions, we need all the technological assistance we can get. I would not, however, have a go at what the hon. Gentleman describes as the intermediate technology, because low-energy light bulbs certainly do save consumers money—even taking account, in some cases, of the additional costs—because of the longer life of the bulbs and the reduced energy consumption involved, but technology needs to continue to evolve to help us in this task of reducing our emissions.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State is known for not being swayed by passion, and for being an open-minded man who is happy to rely on science and his advisers. The Environment Agency has said that the third Heathrow runway would exceed EU pollution limits because of unsafe nitrogen dioxide levels. How is it right—or how would it be right, to use the correct tense—for such advice to be discarded in a cavalier and cursory fashion?

Hilary Benn: I am certainly not in favour of discarding any advice in a cavalier fashion. I say once again to the House—I am sure my hon. Friend will listen very carefully to this—that the Government are determined that we will meet the air quality and noise targets that we have set. That would be a condition on any expansion of Heathrow. People will be able to make a judgment about whether they think that condition has been met when they hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport says shortly.

Greg Hands: The Secretary of State will acknowledge that even in its current configuration Heathrow exceeds the pollution limits in the aforementioned EU air quality directive. Has he applied yet for the derogation that he says he will be seeking from that directive? If so, in terms of the road map he would have to outline for reaching eventual compliance with the directive, can he tell us how 220,000 additional flights each year would help in achieving that?

Hilary Benn: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that, in relation to nitrogen dioxide and Heathrow, the principal problem is road traffic, not aircraft movements. Therefore, what happens on the M4 and other roads in that area has a significant impact. We have not yet applied for that derogation. We are likely to do so first in relation to PM10, because we should have achieved the targets by 2005—many other member states have not—and it is possible to allow for extra time until 2011. In relation to nitrogen dioxide, the date for achieving the target is 2010; we are not going to do so, for the reasons I have set out, and the derogation would extend that to 2015. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Government will have to set out to the satisfaction of the Commission that we have a credible plan for dealing with that. We will have to do so in relation to all the sites where there is a problem, including Heathrow, but as I hope he is aware, Heathrow does not present the biggest problem, because those limits are exceeded by a greater margin in other locations around the country.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Mortgage Fraud

Adrian Bailey: What steps the Serious Fraud Office plans to take to protect people against mortgage fraud.

Vera Baird: In November, the National Fraud Strategic Authority published an action plan to bring together public and private efforts to target mortgage fraud, and it intends to review the plan in a year. In support of that programme, about a tenth of the Serious Fraud Office's current caseload is about mortgage fraud.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Solicitor-General for her reply. My constituents, like those in other areas, are having difficulty in obtaining mortgage finance for the purchase of homes in the current economic climate. Given the difficulties in obtaining funds, can she assure me that she will do everything she can, working with the legal profession, to ensure that the funds that are available are used for legitimate house purchases and not by profiteering fraudsters?

Vera Baird: As ever, my hon. Friend has the interests of his constituents closely in mind. The SFO has recently produced best practice guidance both for lenders and for lawyers who deal with mortgages. The intention of that is, in part, to make it crystal clear when something odd is beginning to happen in a mortgage transaction so that a broader range of people than has been the case historically are able to spot it before things go too wrong. An important part of the whole fraud strategy is turning resources towards protection and prevention and, as the Director of Public Prosecutions said recently, as one would expect the prosecution and investigation authorities are taking on board what is happening in the economy and assessing its impact on crime patterns. I hope that gives my hon. Friend some of the reassurance that he seeks.

Rob Marris: The SFO and the Financial Services Authority seem to have been asleep at the wheel in recent years in respect of mortgage fraud and near-fraud, which appears to have been carried out by some financial services companies themselves. Can the Solicitor-General tell me what steps she proposes to take, with her ministerial colleagues, to improve the rather poor performance of the SFO and FSA in recent years?

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend's point is unarguable really, although it was not all bad in the SFO and there were some very commendable results. He will know that a review of its functioning was carried out by Jessica de Grazia, which reported in 2008, and that a fresh director, Richard Alderman, was appointed around the same time. He has instituted quite a large number of the changes that Ms de Grazia proposed and some further ones; they are designed primarily to strengthen the leadership team, improve staff training and shorten the time that it takes to get cases to court. Quite a sizeable transformation programme is in process, and I shall send my hon. Friend more detail of that if he so wishes.

National Fraud Strategic Authority

Anne Moffat: By what means the new National Fraud Strategic Authority is intended to improve protection for businesses and the public against fraud.

Vera Baird: The NFSA is developing its first national fraud strategy, which follows an extensive consultation with public and private sector bodies. The strategy is intended to bring together Government, enforcement and private sector activity to tackle and prevent fraud. The strategy will be published in the next few months.

Anne Moffat: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer and commend her for coming in when she is obviously quite poorly—I hope that she will soon be on the mend. The formation of the NFSA is welcome, but will its role include fraud prevention? If the NFSA is to be at all strategic, its role surely must include fraud prevention.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend has got exactly to the point identified by the review: although agencies are in place to prosecute, to sentence and to seize assets, a focus must be on spotting fraud early so that the public can be protected from it before it starts, and it can be prevented and disrupted. It was with that aim in mind that the NFSA was set up to co-ordinate and fill in the gaps of our national effort against fraud. The NFSA is working closely with Lothian and Borders police in particular in leading the development of a comprehensive Scottish fraud strategy to match this one.

Serious Fraud Office

Adam Holloway: If she will review the effectiveness and efficiency of the Serious Fraud Office.

Vera Baird: Once again, this is about the Serious Fraud Office and our efforts to combat fraud. Since publication of the de Grazia report, to which I have referred, the director of the SFO, Richard Alderman, has made many changes to the leadership team, improved staff training, and introduced measures to shorten the time taken to get SFO cases to court. He has reorganised the operational divisions and introduced a case management reform programme. The hon. Gentleman has probably read that a new general counsel, Vivian Robinson QC, with whom I am acquainted from my practice and who is an excellent choice, was recently appointed to sharpen up that end of the SFO's work.

Adam Holloway: That is a more detailed explanation, but is the Attorney-General confident that the recent number of failed cases will be turned round by that?

Vera Baird: I am sure that my noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be as confident as I am of what I am about to say. There have been early successes, bearing in mind that Mr. Alderman has been in post less than a year. In October, the SFO obtained its first ever civil recovery order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in a case in which Balfour Beatty was required to return £2.25 million of resources that it had progressed with. There are currently six specific mortgage fraud cases on the SFO's stocks, and much has been done to sharpen its procedures up front so that it spots and evaluates more quickly which cases it should pursue and which it should leave. I hope that its conviction rate will follow that of the American models that the de Grazia review used.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Solicitor-General agree to meet me and the former director of Excel Engineering, which was involved in one of those cases and had the largest number of people prosecuted for fraud? The company, which was the main victim of that fraud, has not been properly compensated, although other complainants who were involved in the fraud have been.

Vera Baird: My hon. Friend has previously raised that matter with me in general. I am not sufficiently apprised of the details to comment, but I will gladly meet her as soon as practicable.

Jonathan Djanogly: May I suggest that the Government are too complacent in their approach? We have correctly identified that the de Grazia report showed a significantly poor SFO performance, relative to US prosecutors, in cost per case, staffing per case and conviction rates. One third of the SFO's management then left the service, and on top of that, only two days ago, the Solicitor-General made a written statement requesting an extra £15 million, but giving no reason whatever. Is it not increasingly looking as though the SFO is an organisation in crisis? The Solicitor-General needs to explain urgently what is going on with the SFO's management.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman could not be wronger— [ Interruption. ] Well, he tries hard, but he could not be wronger. It is not unexpected that when reports such as de Grazia's are produced and a new head comes into the SFO with different ideas about how it should be run, there is movement in the senior management. Richard Alderman seems to me from his presentations to be confident that the new people in post are likely to improve matters enormously. There is absolutely nothing odd, strange or overly demanding about the funding that has recently been given to the SFO. The hon. Gentleman should not be led astray by a Liberal Democrat piece of nonsense that was fed to the press. The  Daily Mail reported that a spokesman for the SFO had said:
	"This additional funding is the anticipated and agreed amount for this financial year."
	May I explain, in case the hon. Gentleman does not know, that funding for the SFO is based on blockbuster cases, which need the replenishment of funds as they are inquired into? The procedure that has taken place just recently is a very normal one.

David Howarth: I am glad that the Solicitor-General has come to that topic. Last year, the SFO came to Parliament to ask for £17 million extra, and Parliament was told that nearly £7 million of that was purely to cover administrative costs. This year, the SFO is coming to Parliament to ask for £20 million, which is more than half of its base budget, but we are not being told how much of that will be spent on purely administrative costs. In fact, the format of the estimates has been changed so that it is now impossible to tell how much the SFO is spending on administrative costs. Will the Solicitor-General tell the House what the £20 million is being spent on? How much is being spent on administrative costs and how much on cases? Will she also explain why the format of the estimates was changed?

Vera Baird: I know of no important change in the format of the estimates. There is no figure of £20 million of which I am aware—I think there has been a little bit of exaggeration. The SFO has an additional £18.81 million, made up of £15.45 million and £3.36 million. That money is largely for the normal accrual of blockbuster cases. In addition, of course, the transformation programme to which I have alluded also requires replenishment. They are perfectly normal bits of funding. A contingency payment has been made and formal parliamentary approval will come in the spring supplementary estimates. If the hon. Gentleman wants any more detail, I invite him to write to me rather than simply getting it wrong and assuming something sinister when there is nothing sinister at all.

Sexual Abuse Victims (Court Proceedings)

Julie Morgan: What plans she has to make it easier for those who have undergone sexual abuse to give evidence in court proceedings.

Vera Baird: The Coroners and Justice Bill, which was introduced to the House yesterday, will allow into evidence as of right, as it were, records of first interviews with complainants of serious sexual offences. That will avoid their having to go through the whole story again from the start in court. It will also allow in evidence from the first time that they complain of an alleged offence. Historically, complaints have only been allowed in when they have been made quickly after the incident, but now the courts recognise that it often takes time before complainants can bring themselves to complain. We have also increased the number of sexual assault referral centres and the number of independent sexual violence advisers, who, in their different ways, befriend and support rape complainants.

Julie Morgan: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that response and congratulate the Government on what they are doing in this field. In Cardiff, we have benefited from the recent opening of a sexual abuse referral centre based in the Cardiff royal infirmary and from an independent sexual violence adviser who helps victims in the courts. What more can be done to help those women, whose experiences are so traumatic, so that when they go to court they feel that they will have a fair hearing and will be able to get justice?

Vera Baird: An important aspect of sustaining people who complain—the British crime survey shows that about a third of people who are sexually assaulted never tell anyone about it, except presumably the British crime survey interviewers many years later—is sustaining their confidence to go to court. We can do that with sexual assault referral centres such the one my hon. Friend mentioned, Safe Island in Cardiff, with better trained police who interview in a more appropriate way and with better trained prosecutors. One hopes that from making a complaint to getting to court a complainant will be sustained and supported so she will have the confidence to get through. It seems to us that that is probably the most important factor in ensuring that women—and men—who have suffered sexual assault get justice.

Bribery

David Heath: What recent discussions she has had with Ministerial colleagues on the law on bribery.

Vera Baird: The Government are currently actively considering the Law Commission's report on bribery, published in November 2008. We are committed to reforming that area of the law, and have announced that we will bring forward a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny this Session.

David Heath: Of course, the UK has been committed, by treaty, to reform in that area for some time, but has not yet made those reforms. The Government were not interested in taking forward proposals for legislation in previous Sessions. Now that we have very clear proposals from the Law Commission, why on earth can we not go ahead with them with the greatest possible urgency?

Vera Baird: Because although it is important that we act quickly, it is very important that we get it right. It is a complex issue and it merits pre-legislative scrutiny. Usually, the hon. Gentleman would welcome pre-legislative scrutiny as providing appropriate exposure of the law. There will be pre-legislative scrutiny in this case. I add that the OECD has recognised that our current law now meets the requirements of the convention, that we are in the top 10 per cent. of countries when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we are in the top third for convictions for bribery, and that we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world according to Transparency International.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Harriet Harman: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 19 January—Second Reading of the Policing and Crime Bill.
	Tuesday 20 January—Motion to approve European documents entitled "From Financial Crisis to Recovery: a European Framework for Action" and "A European Economic Recovery Plan", followed by motion to approve a European document relating to financial management, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to EU-Russia relations.
	Wednesday 21 January—Opposition Day (1st Allotted Day). There will be a debate entitled "Access to Emergency and Urgent Care in the NHS", followed by a debate entitled "The Plight of Savers". Both debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 22 January—Proceedings on a business of the House motion, followed by a debate on motions relating to freedom of information, followed by motions relating to Members' allowances.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 26 January will include:
	Monday 26 January—Second Reading of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
	Tuesday 27 January—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill.
	Wednesday 28 January—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
	Thursday 29 January—Topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by general debate on armed forces personnel.

Theresa May: First, may I take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) back to his role? The Leader of the House has received numerous requests for a debate in Government time on Zimbabwe. The situation there continues to worsen, and the fact that it is not on our television screens does not mean that it should be out of our thoughts. Will the Leader of the House commit to a debate to give all Members the opportunity to speak on this devastating and pressing issue?
	After months of delay, the Transport Secretary will finally make a statement on Heathrow to the House today. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	"There will be a debate about what he says".—[ Official Report, 14 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 212.]
	I understand that the Prime Minister is to meet Labour Back Benchers after the statement has been made, but Members from all sides would welcome the opportunity for a debate, particularly as so many have signed early-day motion 339.
	 [That  this House notes the Government' s commitment given in the 2003 Aviation White Paper, The Future of Air Transport to reduce noise impacts and to ensure that air quality and environmental standards are met before proceeding with a third runway at Heathrow Airport; further notes the assurance given by the Prime Minister on 12 November 2008 that support for a third runway at Heathrow is subject to strict environmental conditions; further notes that Heathrow Airport is already in breach of the European Air Quality Directive to be implemented by 2010; welcomes the statement by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that these environmental commitments should be honoured; supports the Chairman of the Environmen t Agency' s decision to oppose the third runway on environmental grounds; and calls upon the Government not to proceed with the third Heathrow runway or mixed-mode and to put the matter to a vote on the floor of the House.]
	Will the Leader of the House confirm when we will have a debate on Heathrow, and when all Members, on both sides of the House, will have the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the issue?
	The Leader of the House will also know that 85 Members have signed early-day motion 428 on Royal Mail.
	 [That this House notes that the Labour Party Conference 2008, with the backing of Ministers, supported a vision of a wholly publicly-owned, integrated Royal Mail Group; welcomes the conclusion of the Hooper Report that the current universal service obligation offered by Royal Mail, including six days a week delivery, must be protected and that the primary duty of a new regulator should be to maintain it; further welcomes the recommendations in the Report that the Government should take responsibility for the pensions deficit which followed an extended contributions holiday; endorses the call for a new relationship between management and postal unions and welcomes the commitment of the Communication Workers Union to negotiate an agreement which would support the modernisation of the industry; observes that in 2007 the Government agreed to a £1.2 billion loan facility on commercial terms to modernise Royal Mail operations; rejects the recommendation of the Hooper Report to sell a minority stake in Royal Mail which would risk fracturing one of Britain' s greatest public services; further notes that the Government is currently advertising for a new Chair of Royal Mail; and urges the Secretary of State to appoint a Chair and management team who are committed to the principles of a modern public enterprise.]
	May we have a debate in Government time on the future of Royal Mail, so that Members can discuss the Government's part-privatisation plans?
	Official figures show that 100,000 pupils educated entirely under a Labour Government failed to attain at least one GCSE at grade C or above. That is an appalling record, particularly for a party that promised it was all about education, education, education. May we have a debate in Government time on what Ministers intend to do before it is too late for the next generation of schoolchildren?
	The Leader of the House has made her commitment to protecting the primacy of this House, when it comes to announcements of Government policy, clear. On 10 January 2008, she said:
	"I take the matter very seriously. I agree that it is important that Ministers are answerable to this House rather than the media."—[ Official Report, 10 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 538.]
	Yesterday's statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Ian Pearson), on the loan guarantee scheme was leaked to the BBC on Tuesday and was followed by media interviews with Ministers yesterday morning, and it was briefed in a press conference by Lord Mandelson. An oral statement was made in the House only because Mr. Speaker granted our request for an urgent question. While the country is in recession, not only is the Business Secretary not answerable to the House but there are four Business Ministers in the Lords and only one Minister solely from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform in the Commons, which makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's pledge to strengthen Parliament. What is the Leader of the House going to do to ensure that announcements are made to the Commons so that Members can ask questions on behalf of their constituents?
	Eighteen months ago, the Prime Minister said that all Ministers' relevant financial interests would be released
	"to ensure proper scrutiny of ministerial conduct".
	Yesterday, he said:
	"If it has not been done, it will be done."—[ Official Report, 14 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 211.]
	Will the Leader of the House tell us when that report will be published, and will she also confirm that the delay was caused by Lord Mandelson's "complicated" interests?
	Finally, yesterday, the Business Minister, Baroness Vadera, said that she could see "a few green shoots" of recovery in the economy. That was on the very same day that Barclays announced that it was cutting 2,100 UK jobs, a further 800 jobs went at Jaguar Land Rover and the music chain, Zavvi, and Grattan announced that 3,500 jobs were at risk. What on earth was the Business Minister thinking, and do her comments not show that the Government and their Ministers are completely out of touch?

Harriet Harman: The shadow Leader of the House asks for a further debate on Zimbabwe. Members on both sides of the House are well aware how dire the situation is, and that it is deteriorating. I shall continue to look for an opportunity to debate Zimbabwe on the Floor of the House.
	The right hon. Lady asks about the process following the forthcoming decision about Heathrow and the third runway. As she knows, there will be a statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, but the process thereafter is contingent on what he announces, so I shall not seek to pre-empt him by saying what it will be after the decision. That is a matter for hon. Members to put to him when he has given his substantive decision.
	The Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs made a statement to the House on the future of the Royal Mail, bringing the House up to date and allowing it an opportunity to hold Ministers accountable. He reaffirmed our commitment to universal postal services, and the fact that we shall ensure that Royal Mail keeps its commitment to fulfil its pension liabilities. He reported, too, on the Hooper review and on our response to it. The proposals ensure that we keep our pension commitments, that we keep a universal postal service, that we have better regulation to allow Royal Mail to thrive in future, and that we go into a partnership with a minority stake held by a private partner. The proposals were put into the public domain in an oral statement to the House, and they are open to discussion. It is up to the Opposition if, the week after next, they would like to choose that as the topic of their Opposition debate.
	The right hon. Lady mentioned educational outcomes for children in this country. We are very proud indeed that, after investment in education, far more and better-paid teachers in our schools, higher valuation of education, more capital investment, and rebuilding our schools, the number of children attaining five A to C GCSEs has gone up from 45 per cent. in 1997 to 64 per cent. We intend to continue that investment and to make further progress.
	The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) spoke of the statement on the four-point plan to help businesses with credit lines. The whole House will be aware that the development of our plans has been ongoing: there have been announcements, debates, oral statements and responses by the Prime Minister and other Ministers to parliamentary questions. I am well aware that we need to make sure that the House is kept fully up to speed and that hon. Members have an opportunity to ask questions. Indeed, when I stood in for the Prime Minister at oral questions in December I talked about the plans that we were developing for helping businesses with their credit lines.
	We want to strike the right balance between coming to the House with our plans and making sure that they are announced. This House, of course, has primacy and I have drawn up a list of all the occasions since October when hon. Members have been able to take part in topical debates, general debates and Opposition day debates on these matters. There have also been statements—on the G20, for example—as well as the pre-Budget report and the emergency debate on the economy. In addition, the Chancellor has given evidence to the Treasury Committee and we had the Queen's Speech debate on the economy. I undertake to write to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead to remind her of just how much accountability to the House there has been in respect of the very important priority that we should all give to the economy and to providing help for business.
	The right hon. Lady asked when the Register of Ministers' Interests will be brought forward. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it will be brought forward as soon as it is complete.
	The right hon. Lady asked about Baroness Vadera, who is a highly professional, dedicated and effective member of the ministerial team at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. I would say that five minutes of Baroness Vadera's time is worth a lifetime of the judgments of the Leader of the Opposition or the shadow Chancellor. In our ministerial team we have serious people for serious times, and I welcome the arrival in our team of Mervyn Davies.

Siobhain McDonagh: In response to a question three months ago from my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House agreed that the situation in Sri Lanka was such that it required a debate on the Floor of the House. I should be grateful if she reconsidered that judgment, given that 70,000 people have lost their lives since the ceasefire failed. The situation in Sri Lanka is becoming much worse, with thousands of people displaced and their lives under threat.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend raises a point that is of concern across the House. Indeed, it was raised at Prime Minister's questions yesterday, when it received a very forthcoming response from my right hon. Friend.

David Heath: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

David Heath: It is all downhill from here.
	The noble Baroness Vadera has one facet that the Leader of the House did not mention—she is unelected. We have got ourselves into a constitutional muddle on this issue, as I shall make clear. The junior Minister in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform was dragged to this House yesterday to make a statement and then, rather lamely, the Secretary of State who made the decision was able to make a statement four hours later in another place. I gather that another banker is being added to the ministerial team, but he too will be in the other place.
	That is the constitutional problem, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how, in this economic crisis, we make sure that key ministerial posts are filled by people who are properly answerable to this House? They are dealing with important economic matters but at the moment they answer to a House that is not supposed, constitutionally, to consider public finances. We are the elected House, and this is where such debates should happen.
	May we have an urgent statement on the response to the High Court decision on the rights of Gurkhas to settle in Britain? Many people, myself included, feel that those brave men have been treated shamefully by this country. We have been waiting for a Government response since September, and we need a debate on the matter. Can the Leader of the House also deny categorically the report in one newspaper that the Brigade of Gurkhas is to be disbanded?
	I guess I have to declare an interest in Heathrow as I am now a landowner—of a very, very small portion of land in the path of the new Heathrow runway. The Prime Minister promised us a debate. The Leader of the House does not have to be so coy about whether there will be a debate. The Prime Minister promised a debate in the House, and every indication is that the majority of Members want the opportunity to vote against what we expect to be announced shortly on Heathrow. This, again, is a constitutional issue. If most of the House want to have the opportunity to debate the matter and have a substantive motion to vote on, we should have one.
	Lastly, I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Lady regularly reads the  Almaty Herald or  Kazakhstan s kaya Pravda, but if she does she may have picked up a headline along the lines of "Prime Minister tells Ministers to answer questions". Prime Minister Karim Masimov of Kazakhstan said:
	"I order all Ministers to start personal blogs where people will be able to ask you questions that you must answer."
	I am not sure about the blogs, but would it not be an excellent precedent for this country as well if Ministers actually answered the questions that they are asked?

Harriet Harman: The process in relation to ministerial roles in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is the normal process whereby there are Ministers in the Lords and Ministers in the Commons. The most important issue is to ensure that this House is kept fully abreast of all the developments and that there is an opportunity for Members of this House to question the responsible Minister.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about the Gurkhas. As he knows, new guidance is being prepared. Once it is complete, former Gurkhas' applications for the right to live in this country will be considered case by case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has consistently, including at the end of last year, expressed his absolute commitment to the role of the Gurkhas in the British Army.
	The hon. Gentleman asks about Heathrow. I shall not pre-empt the statement. The substance and the process of the Heathrow announcement need to be looked at together. No doubt the hon. Gentleman can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about that after he makes his statement to the House.

Lyn Brown: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that next week we will debate the important topics of freedom of information and publication of Members' allowances. Can she assure me that we will be given the chance to debate and to vote to make our allowances even more transparent?

Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will have heard me announce that on the Order Paper next Thursday there will be a statutory instrument on freedom of information, followed by motions. The draft statutory instrument is in the Table Office and the motions are on the Order Paper. What I, as Leader of the House, aim to achieve by next Thursday's business is to ensure that in respect of allowances paid to Members of Parliament, which is public money, the public can be certain that there is a clear and reasonable set of rules against which money is paid out, that there is a proper audit system to make sure that those rules are obeyed, that the amount is paid under clear headings for each individual Member of Parliament every year and is made public, that it is proportionate and affordable, and that all this is done at a reasonable cost.
	That is what we are proposing in a statutory instrument and a series of motions next week. Hon. Members will see that whereas in the past we have published about 13 information headings, the combination of the statutory instrument and the motion that I will put before the House will mean that the public instead have 26 categories of information. The public will have more information than they have ever had before and we will take that back to 2005, so that for all Members, since they have been in the House, each year their allowances against 26 headings will be made public. We want to make sure that the public have confidence that there are clear rules and that they know what is going on.

Michael Spicer: Will the Leader of the House say what the precise voting structure will be on Thursday?

Harriet Harman: I will put a business motion before the House before the substantive debate. The business motion will prescribe that the first debate will be on the statutory instrument under the Freedom of Information Act, which will be Government business. In the same debate there will also be a motion that sets forth a publication scheme. That motion will say that we will publish once a year back to 2005 for every individual Member under those 26 headings. At the end of that first substantive debate there will be two votes—one on the Government business under the Freedom of Information Act, and the second one, which will be House business, on the publications scheme.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that investment in green energy technology is essential if our economy is to be developed for the future? The north-east is ideally placed to take forward the application of that technology—critically, in continuing to develop a manufacturing base to support renewable energy. Will she make space for a debate soon on this important topic?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point across both the environmental and the economic agendas. We want to provide help to businesses to invest now and hope for the future of the economy. Renewable energy and green issues will be extremely important. I will bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friends and seek an opportunity to debate it.

Richard Ottaway: When the Green Book was last debated in July, a rather bizarre and unnoticed resolution went through linking capital gains tax to the additional costs allowance. There was no word of debate about it, it was completely misunderstood by the House, and it is unworkable and almost certainly unenforceable. May I suggest that next Thursday a further resolution be tabled saying that the original resolution does not come into effect until there is further debate and consideration of the matter?

Harriet Harman: The Speaker has published the new Green Book, which was prepared by the advisory panel on Members' allowances and which was considered and approved by the Members Estimate Committee. If he looks in that, the hon. Gentleman will see that a way of dealing with that is laid down. We need to make sure that while we are not changing the provisions of the Finance Act in relation to how the selling of homes is dealt with by way of capital gains tax, we have a flexible and sensible situation for the treatment of the second home under the ACA. I am happy to have a further discussion with the hon. Gentleman after business questions so that we can go through the Green Book and I can explain it to him. My deputy and I are more than happy to go through any aspects of the motions or of the Green Book individually with Members between now and next Thursday, so that everybody can be as clear as possible before they have the opportunity for a full day's debate on Thursday.

Parmjit Dhanda: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider allowing a debate on the Legal Services Commission's latest consultation paper? It states that organisations wishing to deliver immigration and asylum advice would need to have a permanent presence in an area of high demand. Most of the immigration casework that I do is with a law centre in Gloucester, which would be expected to have a base in Bristol to continue to be able to apply for funding. That would not work and would not be acceptable. We have a very good rapport with the centre and much of my casework is about immigration, so I hope the Department of Justice will consider that.

Harriet Harman: As luck would have it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice is present and has heard my hon. Friend's point. My right hon. Friend has said that he will request a meeting with my hon. Friend to sort the matter out.

Annette Brooke: Given the unprecedented number of responses to the south-west regional spatial strategy, will the Leader of the House allocate parliamentary time so that a representative group of MPs from across the region can participate fully in debate on these issues?

Harriet Harman: That is exactly why the House voted to set up regional Committees—so that there can be such accountability for and scrutiny of regional spatial strategies.

Andrew Slaughter: My right hon. and learned Friend must realise that the issue of the third runway is of concern to Members on both sides of the House. Will she at least concede a debate in Government time, rather than there being an Opposition day debate and the opportunism that that involves? I see from the  Evening Standard that the Government have a lot to say on the matter, even in advance of the statement. Will a Government debate be allowed, and will it end with a vote so that the House can express its view?

Harriet Harman: I do not want to pre-empt the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport; until he has said what his decision is, hon. Members will not know whether they really want a debate.

Patrick Cormack: As the noble Lord Mandelson is now widely acknowledged to be the deputy Prime Minister, would it not be a proper answer to the questions previously put to the Leader of the House if the Prime Minister deputised for the noble Lord in this House?

Harriet Harman: The ministerial team at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is disposed between the Lords and the Commons, and accountable in both Houses.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate on consumer protection? If someone buys a faulty pair of shoes, they can take them back. If they buy a faulty large electrical item from a company such as Comet, they are required to make themselves available for four hours so that the company can remove the faulty equipment that it has delivered. Is it not time that we looked at how we protect hard-working families who cannot take such time out and whose e-mails and letters are ignored? Should the onus not be on the company putting the issue right, rather than on the consumer being available at the company's behest?

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes for utilities as well. If families are hard-pressed, working hard and looking after their children and elderly relatives, they do not want to be messed around by Comet, the gas board or anybody else. I shall raise the issue not only with Lord Mandelson, but with Ministers in this House.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving a positive answer to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about a debate on Zimbabwe. Despite the tragedy and horrific events in Gaza, it is important that we do not overlook Zimbabwe, where the death and suffering are as great or greater than in Gaza.
	I turn to my main question to the right hon. and learned Lady. Will she find Government time for a full day's debate on the economy, so that Back Benchers can express to Ministers the impact in individual constituencies of what is clearly the worst credit and financial crisis of my lifetime? The Government would be the wiser if that debate took place.

Harriet Harman: As well as the Queen's Speech debate on the economy on 15 December, we had in Government time the emergency debate on the economy on 26 November. If we think that there has not been enough business before the House giving an opportunity for Members to comment more broadly on the economy, we will bring forward specific time for such debate. It is important that the House should play its full part, with Members bringing information from their constituencies and holding the Government to account for our handling of the economy. That is very important indeed.
	Zimbabwe is a preoccupation of all Members, not least the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister himself are doing a great deal of work on Zimbabwe. The Prime Minister personally liaises with world leaders to try to mobilise the European, United Nations and African Union effort to better effect. I will look for an opportunity for an early debate on Zimbabwe.

Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reflect on her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)? The Prime Minister's answer on Sri Lanka yesterday was helpful, but at the moment 300,000 Tamils are under siege because of the actions of the Sri Lankan Government. The Leader of the House changed the business this week to deal with the situation in Gaza. The situation in Sri Lanka is just as bad. Will she please allow an emergency debate on the catastrophic situation there?

Harriet Harman: My right hon. Friend raised that issue forcefully and to good effect with the Prime Minister yesterday, and we will take seriously the points that he has so rightly raised.

Transport Infrastructure

Geoff Hoon: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's plans for Britain's transport infrastructure.
	Effective transport links are vital to our economic competitiveness and our daily lives. Britain's prosperity is increasingly defined by the quality of its links to other great trading nations, by the way in which we move people and goods around the country, and by our ability to meet the needs of businesses for gateways to the global economy and to enable people to see their families and friends and go on holiday.
	As the economic downturn demonstrates, we live in a global age. It is critical that the Government should make the tough choices necessary to deliver long-term prosperity for the United Kingdom—but in a way that meets our environmental objectives. In that context of sustainable economic growth, I want to set out a package of transport investments to prepare us for an ever more global and mobile world.
	Over the past decade, we have delivered a £150 billion investment in transport—more than £13 billion this year alone—and we have announced that we will bring forward an extra £1 billion to stimulate the economy by accelerating our plans to cut congestion and increase rail capacity significantly. Over this current three-year period, we are spending around £40 billion, ensuring that investment in transport is at its highest for 30 years as a proportion of national income.
	I should first like to update the House on our plans for the road and rail infrastructure and carbon dioxide emissions from transport, before turning to aviation and, in particular, Heathrow. I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses relevant papers setting out the proposals in more detail. At the conclusion of my statement, copies will be available in the Vote Office and on the Department's website.
	Motorways are essential for enabling people and goods to move around the country. Successful trials on the M42 have enabled us safely to open up motorway hard shoulders in peak periods, delivering more reliable journey times and adding a third more capacity at peak times—and all delivered at a lower cost than a more conventional road-widening scheme. After further detailed work, I can announce today a programme of up to £6 billion which includes applying those techniques to some of the most congested parts of the M1, M25, M6 and M62, the M3 and M4 approaching London, and the motorways around Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol. This is the first step in our strategy to provide for managed motorways across the core of the motorway network, linking our major cities over the next 10 to 15 years and reducing congestion, with fewer environmental impacts than conventional motorway widening.
	We are already investing £10 billion in the railways over the next five years, to add capacity while improving reliability and safety. However, given the time that it takes to plan and build new rail infrastructure, we need to look well beyond 2014. Electrification is advantageous on heavily used parts of the rail network. Electric trains are lighter, accelerate faster, are quieter and emit less carbon dioxide. We are well advanced in procuring replacement trains for the inter-city routes, but before we finalise our plans we need to decide whether new parts of the network should be electrified.
	Initial work suggests that the case for electrification appears strongest on the most heavily used parts of the Great Western main line from Paddington and the midland main line north of Bedford. Alongside the work on our new inter-city trains, we will analyse the value for money, affordability and financing options of the electrification proposals that Network Rail will put to me shortly. I intend to make a further statement later this year.
	Because of the need to plan for the long term, I can also announce that I am today forming a new company, High Speed 2, to consider the case for new high-speed rail services from London to Scotland. As a first stage, we have asked the company to develop a proposal for an entirely new line between London and the west midlands; that would enable faster journeys to other destinations in the north of England and Scotland, using both existing lines and a new high-speed rail network.
	Our experience with Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link has demonstrated that advance detailed planning is required to progress such major infrastructure schemes. The purpose of the new company will be to advise Ministers on the feasibility and credibility of a new line, with specific route options and financing proposals. Sir David Rowlands will chair the company in the interim. I see a strong case for this new line approaching London via a Heathrow international hub station on the Great Western line, to provide a direct four-way interchange between the airport, the new north-south line, existing Great Western rail services and Crossrail, into the heart of London. My intention is that by the end of this year the company will have advised us on the most promising route, or routes, with their individual costs and benefits.
	In the 2003 air transport White Paper, the Government set out their support—in principle—for a third runway at Heathrow airport: that support was conditional on any development meeting strict local environmental conditions. Heathrow airport supports more than 100,000 British jobs. A third runway is forecast to create up to 8,000 new on-site jobs by 2030 and will provide further employment benefits to the surrounding area. Its construction alone would provide up to 60,000 jobs. But, more significantly for businesses across the United Kingdom, Heathrow is the only hub airport—it is our most important international gateway. It serves destinations that none of our other airports serve, and it provides more frequent services to key international destinations such as Mumbai and Beijing. It connects us to the growth markets of the future—essential for every great trading nation. In doing so, it benefits every region of the United Kingdom. But Heathrow is now operating at around 99 per cent. of its maximum capacity, leading to delays and constraints on future economic growth. Heathrow is already losing ground to international hub airports in other competitor countries. This makes the UK a progressively less attractive place for mobile international businesses. Delays damage the efficiency of the airport, but they also cause unnecessary carbon dioxide emissions as up to four stacks of aircraft circle London waiting to land.
	The Government remain convinced, therefore, that additional capacity at Heathrow is critical to this country's long-term economic prosperity. We consulted in November 2007 on three options for providing additional capacity, and on whether the environmental conditions could be met. We received nearly 70,000 replies. I have now considered the responses and reached my conclusions. Two of the options would use the existing runways for both arrivals and take-offs, otherwise known as mixed mode. This would improve resilience, reduce delays and has the potential also to provide early additional capacity. It is clear from the consultation, however, that residents under the flight paths greatly value the present alternation of runway operations at around 3 pm, which gives them respite from overhead aircraft noise for at least eight hours a day. Having carefully considered the evidence, including from the consultation, I have decided not to proceed with mixed mode. I have also decided to extend the benefits of runway alternation to those affected by aircraft taking off and landing when the wind is blowing from the east. I will therefore end the Cranford agreement, which generally prohibits easterly take-offs on the northern runway. This will benefit the residents of Windsor and others to the west of the airport, and Hatton and north Feltham to the east. I support the continuation of the other operating procedures as set out in the consultation.
	This leaves the question of a third runway. Let me first explain my conclusions, in the light of the conditions on noise, air quality and surface access set out in the 2003 White Paper. In 1974, some 2 million people around Heathrow were affected by average levels of noise at or above 57 dB. By 2002, that number had reduced to 258,000 people as the result of significant improvements in aircraft technology. In the White Paper, the Government committed not to enlarge the area within which average noise exceeded 57 dB. In the light of all the evidence, including from the consultation, I have decided that this condition can be met, even with a third runway. Indeed, because newer aircraft are quieter, the numbers of people within the 57 dB contour by 2020 is expected to fall by a further 15,000 from 2002, even with more aircraft movements in 2020. And the number of people affected by higher levels of noise is expected to fall even more significantly: for example, a 68 per cent. reduction—more than 20,000 fewer people—in the number of those affected by noise averaging 66 dB and above.
	On air quality, the Government are committed to meeting our EU obligations. The relevant pollutant at Heathrow is nitrogen dioxide, for which the EU has set a 2010 target of an annual average of no more than 40 micrograms per cubic metre. As with most other major European economies, the UK does not yet fully comply with this limit, largely as a result of emissions from motor vehicles. The area around Heathrow is by no means the worst example in the country, and the limit is currently exceeded in a number of places in the UK, in most cases by more than is the case near Heathrow. Meeting EU air quality targets is an issue that must be addressed right across the United Kingdom, not simply around Heathrow airport. The European Commission has agreed that member states could be allowed an extension to 2015 if member states can show that they have plans in place to meet the targets. This presents a significant challenge, but I am committed to supporting the actions, mainly in relation to motor vehicle emissions, necessary to achieve it. Immediately around Heathrow, action will be necessary to ensure that we meet the air quality limits by 2015. Our forecasts predict that, in any event, we will be meeting the limits by 2020 even with airport expansion.
	Usually these decisions would be taken on the basis of forward projections and modelling. To reinforce our commitments on noise and air quality, I have decided, however, that additional flights could be allowed only when the independent Civil Aviation Authority is satisfied, first, that the noise and air quality conditions have already been met—the air quality limit is already statutory, and we will also give the noise limits legal force—and secondly, that any additional capacity will not compromise the legal air quality and noise limits. We will give the CAA a new statutory environmental duty to ensure that it acts in the interests of the environment in addition to its existing obligations and duties, and that it follows guidance from myself and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Energy and Climate Change. Moreover, in the event that air quality or noise limits were breached, the independent regulators would have a legal duty and the necessary powers to take the action needed—or require others to take it—to come back into compliance. In the case of noise, the matter would be for the CAA. In the case of air quality, where emissions from roads and rail around Heathrow also need to be considered, the Environment Agency will act as the enforcement body, with appropriate guidance from Ministers.
	The third local condition for expansion for Heathrow was the provision of adequate public transport. Major improvements in rail access have already been announced, including increases in capacity on the Piccadilly line and the introduction of Crossrail services from 2017. This will provide a maximum capacity of 6,000 passengers per hour, which will be able to accommodate the estimated demand for rail access to a three-runway airport. The Government also welcome the lead being taken by BAA to promote the Airtrack project providing direct rail access to the airport at terminal 5 from the south and west. The Department will work with BAA and Network Rail to consider this and other schemes to improve connections from Heathrow to places such as Waterloo and Guildford, Reading and other stations on the Great Western main line.
	Having considered all the evidence, I have decided that all three of the Government's conditions for supporting a third runway at Heathrow can be met. I can therefore confirm that an additional terminal and the slightly longer runway proposed in the consultation are the best way to maximise the efficiency of a larger airport. However, I want there to be a limit on the initial use of the third runway so that the increase in aircraft movements does not exceed 125,000 a year rather than—at this stage—allowing the full additional 222,000 aircraft movements on which we consulted. I have also decided that any additional capacity available on the third runway will, after consultation, be subject to a new "green slot" principle to incentivise the use at Heathrow of the most modern aircraft, with further benefits for air quality and noise—and, indeed, carbon dioxide emissions.
	It is of course crucial for transport, including aviation, to play its full part in meeting our goal to limit carbon dioxide emissions. As a result of UK leadership on aviation emissions in particular, carbon dioxide emissions from international aviation were included in the EU's 20 per cent. greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020, agreed by the Prime Minister with other European leaders in December last year. Under the EU emissions trading scheme, this reduction will occur whether or not Heathrow is expanded. With a fixed cap for aviation across Europe, doing nothing at Heathrow would allow extra capacity at other hub airports such as Frankfurt, Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle. Doing nothing will damage our economy and have no impact on climate change. The framework for reducing emissions across the EU covers international aviation and all sectors of each member state's domestic economy. This includes emissions from domestic transport within the UK. The Government have already made it clear that they will respond to the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on carbon budgets, taking into account aviation, and we will set our carbon budgets later this year. Those budgets will reflect the measures in the EU 2020 package, such as tough new limits on emissions from new cars.
	To reinforce the delivery of carbon dioxide savings, and to lay the ground for greater savings beyond 2020, I am announcing today funding of £250 million to promote the take-up, and commercialisation within the UK, of ultra low-emission road vehicles. With road transport emissions so much greater than those of aviation, even a relatively modest take-up of electric vehicles beyond 2020 could, on its own, match all the additional carbon dioxide generated by the expansion of Heathrow.
	However, action in relation to domestic transport is not sufficient. We need to take the same tough approach to aviation emissions as we are taking to other transport emissions. Having taken the lead in promoting the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme, the Government will be pressing hard for international aviation to be part of the global deal on climate change at Copenhagen later this year. I have asked the Committee on Climate Change to report back later this year on the best way in which such a deal for aviation could be structured.
	I can announce my intention to promote an international agreement to secure the same kind of progressively stricter limits on carbon dioxide emissions from aircraft as are already in place for cars within the EU. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), has been in Tokyo this week setting that out to a meeting of G7 Transport Ministers. However, I want to go further. Work published by the aviation industry illustrates how it could reduce UK emissions below 2005 levels by 2050. That could include the use of new technologies such as blended wings and the sustainable introduction of renewable fuels. I can announce that we will establish a new target to get aviation emissions in 2050 below 2005 levels, and I have asked the Committee on Climate Change to advise on the best basis for its development.
	The Government will monitor carefully the emissions from aviation, with the help of the Committee on Climate Change. Any future capacity increases at Heathrow beyond the decision that I have announced today will be approved by the Government only after a review by the Committee on Climate Change in 2020 of whether we are on track to achieve the 2050 target that I have announced.
	We are effectively taking three steps to limit any increase in carbon dioxide emissions. First, we are limiting the initial extra capacity to around half of what was originally proposed. Secondly, we intend that new slots at Heathrow will have to be green slots. Only the cleanest planes will be allowed to use the new slots that will be made available. Thirdly, we will establish a new target to limit aviation emissions in the UK to below 2005 levels by 2050. Taken together, that gives us the toughest climate change regime for aviation of any country in the world, which gives Ministers the confidence that we will achieve our 80 per cent. emissions reduction target. In addition, we will make it one of our highest priorities to secure international agreement on measures to reduce aviation emissions.
	The airport clearly needs new capacity as soon as possible to reduce delays and improve resilience. Since I am not willing to allow the two existing runways to operate on mixed mode, I anticipate that the airport operator will bring forward a planning application for a new runway to be operational early in the period envisaged in the White Paper, between 2015 and 2020.
	The parallel review of the economic regulation of airports is focusing on how best to improve the passenger experience and encourage investment. In the regulatory framework that results from that work, I expect the first call on new capacity to be ensuring that journeys are more reliable for existing passengers. We will therefore have a better airport.
	These announcements on transport infrastructure, on motorways, on railways, on Heathrow, and on carbon reductions from transport show the Government taking the right decisions for the long term. We are delivering real help with job creation today, creating real hope for Britain's long-term growth prospects, and giving real help in securing carbon reductions, real help for rail passengers and real help in increasing the long-term competitiveness of the UK economy by creating excellent transport links to the global economy, ensuring that this country remains an attractive place in which to do business. I commend this statement to the House.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, but frankly, if this is the result of the great row in the Cabinet, his colleagues did not get a very good deal out of it. Let us be in no doubt: this is a bleak day for our environment and for all of us who care about safeguarding it. Labour's plans for a third runway at Heathrow would inflict devastating damage on the environment and on quality of life, and the Conservatives will fight them every step of the way.
	I begin with the Secretary of State's commitment to restrict the initial use of the runway, and that at this stage he would give the go-ahead for only 125,000 more flights, rather than 222,000. When does he propose to lift that cap? How long is that tenuous guarantee going to last?
	The Secretary of State has admitted again today that Heathrow is already in breach of the EU air quality directive, which will become binding in a year's time. Will he explain how an airport with a massive increase in flights and car journeys to support another 55 million passengers can possibly comply with the directive? Why does he continue to be deaf to the Environment Agency's warning that pollution from a third runway will increase the risk of serious illness and early death around the airport?
	Is the Secretary of State concerned that in the debate in the House last year, Members from as far apart as Reading and Greenwich expressed concern about the impact on their constituents of aircraft noise from Heathrow at its present size? Is it not recklessly irresponsible to compound an already serious problem with a new flight path over a densely populated area?
	I welcome the Secretary of State's apparent retreat on mixed mode. He says that he will not proceed with it, but again, how long will that guarantee last? How long will residents have that protection?
	The Secretary of State claims that only low-emission planes will be allowed to use the new slots generated by a third runway. Which planes will qualify for the green slots that he talked about? Will he admit that there are no planes on the market that are clean or quiet enough to meet the environmental promises that he has already made, never mind the vague pledges on green slots that we have heard today? Will he admit that his Department's expectation of future compliance with the environmental preconditions depends heavily on fantasy green planes that no manufacturer has plans to produce?
	The Secretary of State's apparent conversion to high-speed rail gives us little more than warm words and the possibility of a link to Birmingham. Why does he still refuse to accept that high-speed rail could provide an alternative to a third runway by providing an alternative to thousands of short-haul flights? Why will he not admit that the economic arguments for a third runway have been conclusively rebutted, and that there is no convincing evidence that Heathrow will go into a spiral of decline without major expansion?
	Frankly, no one believes what the Secretary of State has to say about a limit of 125,000 flights. How does he propose to reconcile a massive increase in flights every year, the equivalent of bolting on to Heathrow a new airport the size of Gatwick, with Labour's legally binding commitment to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent.? Does he really want his political legacy to be the bulldozers rolling out to construct a runway to blight the lives of millions, when instead he could have gone down in history as the man who finally put the brakes on the relentless outward expansion of Heathrow, and demonstrated that the political class has at last woken up to the compelling urgency of climate change?
	The Secretary of State has given us assurances on flight caps, on green slots and on a 2050 date for restricting aviation emissions, but the Government's credibility is wholly undermined by their record. They have made every effort to dodge their environmental promises by reverse-engineering the data to get the answers that they wanted. They are seeking a derogation from the EU air quality rules, which are a fundamental pillar of Labour's environmental safeguards. They are the Government who were pushing to lift the terminal 5 flight cap less than a year after the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers) stood at the Dispatch Box and pledged to impose it. They are in disarray over Heathrow, their consultation has been a sham and their aviation White Paper is no longer fit for purpose.
	The world has moved on when it comes to Heathrow, but Labour just has not moved with it. The Government are on the wrong side of the argument and their environmental credibility is in tatters. It is time for Labour to scrap its plans for a third runway. If it will not do that, it is time for it to call a general election so that the country can elect a Conservative Government who will prevent this environmental disaster from going ahead.

Geoff Hoon: In weighing the evidence when making difficult decisions, such as those that I outlined to the House today, any Government or potential Government have to consider it carefully and reach often difficult conclusions. I am sorry that the hon. Lady demonstrated in her remarks today that she had clearly reached her conclusions long before any examination of the evidence. She also showed—I encourage her researchers to provide her with some assistance on the matter—that she simply does not understand the terms of the EU air quality directive or the enormous improvements in technology for producing modern aircraft. I am disappointed, albeit not particularly surprised, by her response. Her comments are entirely representative of the do-nothing attitude of the modern Conservative party.
	In contrast to the action and decisions that we are taking, the Conservative party would do nothing to give businesses and families real help now and in future. It would do nothing to provide a genuine financial stimulus to the economy; it has opposed the £3 billion capital investment that we introduced for infrastructure projects, including £1 billion extra for transport. It would do nothing to tackle the capacity problems at Heathrow, which will increasingly damage the economy and British jobs.
	Doing nothing is the worst of all possible worlds. By encouraging our European competitors to expand at our expense, doing nothing would damage the country economically and save not a single gram of carbon. That is why British business has roundly condemned the Conservative party's position.
	It may surprise the House to learn that there is a Conservative position on aviation, which, unlike that of Conservative Front Benchers, has the benefit of being intellectually coherent— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering an extremely important matter. The House would serve its interests and those of hon. Members by hearing the questions and the answers in comparative silence.

Geoff Hoon: I do not agree with the comments of the Mayor of London about developing an estuary airport, but it is significant that his approach recognises the requirement for extra capacity for Heathrow. Although I disagree with his conclusion, at least he recognises the problem that the country and its businesses face. He said:
	"The reality is that this recession will end, and when it ends we need to be able to compete in the long term with other capitals whose main airports have four, five or even six runways."
	I do not often cite the Mayor of London with approval, but he acknowledges the problem. He has not avoided the issue for a short-term party political advantage—an advantage that Conservative Front Benchers believe that they might gain through putting their political interests ahead of this country's interests.
	The hon. Lady also persists in her absurd argument that we should somehow choose between expanding aviation and rail capacity. Her policy was nonsense when she originally announced it, and it remains nonsense. Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said:
	"A high-speed rail link would have a lot going for it, but don't think for a minute that it will solve the capacity problems at Heathrow."
	That is exactly the problem that Conservative Front Benchers have consistently failed to address. I have always been a strong supporter of our railways and I firmly believe that we should accelerate work on new high-speed links. We have put in place the mechanisms for determining that in a practical way, both financially and in terms of the required structures, unlike the policy that was cobbled together on the back of some envelope in the hon. Lady's office.
	Let me be clear: a new line would be complementary to expansion at Heathrow, not an alternative. That is why I have asked for the development of plans for a Heathrow interchange station. It is all very well for the hon. Lady to complain that she supports those plans, but she neglected to explain how she would pay for the new transport projects that she announced. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed cuts of some £840 million in the next year alone. It is simply not credible for Conservative Front Benchers to talk about extra investment in new transport infrastructure without saying where the cuts that they propose will happen. They cannot guarantee a single transport project, not even Crossrail, while they consider such massive cuts in the transport budget. We have not heard a single word from Conservative Front Benchers about which projects they will cut. They cannot be taken seriously on transport when they are talking about such cuts in the budget that is already available.
	The country clearly faces a choice about Heathrow and transport investment. It can make a choice for the future—for jobs, British business and our international competitiveness. Hon. Members can decide which side they are on. I know which side I am on, and which side the Government are on.

Norman Baker: Perhaps the Secretary of State could place his written answers to questions in the Library. I declare an interest as the beneficial owner of a very small, recently acquired piece of land at Sipson.
	The decision to proceed with the third runway is the worst environmental decision that the Government have made in 11 years. It drives a jumbo jet through their Climate Change Act 2008, on which the ink is barely dry. With a commitment to a reduction of 80 per cent. in carbon emissions, how can the Secretary of State and his colleagues possibly justify the construction of a new runway? It is also one of the worst political decisions in 11 years, on a par with that on the millennium dome. There is huge opposition to it in the Labour party, and it has united the opposition in the House and in the country and destroyed the Government's green credentials. I make it plain that the Liberal Democrat manifesto will include a commitment to reverse the decision. That is not insignificant given the likely arithmetic in the next House of Commons.
	Will there be a vote in the House in Government time on the matter? Will we be allowed to make a democratic decision? If the Government were defeated—I believe that they would be—would the Secretary of State accept the democratic will of the House and abandon his plans?
	Yesterday, the Prime Minister promised a planning inquiry into the third runway proposal. Will that be a proper inquiry in traditional planning terms, or will it be held by his new puppet body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission? If the latter is the case, when will the Secretary of State bring the relevant national policy statements before the House?
	The promises about Heathrow are not worth the paper they are written on. Time and again, this Government and previous Governments have broken them. For example, when terminal 5 was approved, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet agreed that a third runway would be "totally unacceptable". Are not Government promises about Heathrow akin to a pledge from a fox not to harm chickens?
	The Secretary of State said that additional flights would occur only if air quality limits were already fulfilled. The following page of his statement gives an indication of the number of flights that will take place. Does he seriously want us to believe that, if a runway is built, it will not be used? Does he expect us to believe that more weight will be given to a target that he sets than to a concrete runway? If the runway is built, it will be used, irrespective of any promises he makes today about air pollution. The effect of the green slot principle will simply be to concentrate dirtier planes on runways 1 and 2. It will make no difference to the type of plane used generally at Heathrow.
	Has the Secretary of State received confirmation from the CAA that the extra flights can be safely accommodated?
	The Secretary of State's comments on rail have been cobbled together at the last minute in a desperate attempt to sugar the poison pill of a third runway. No commitments high-speed rail have been made today. He said that he would establish a company to "consider the case". The case has been made: Network Rail has already done a great deal of work on it. We are simply kicking high-speed rail into the long grass again in an attempt to find something that will make the third runway at Heathrow sound palatable today.
	It is a terrible day for the environment and for the Secretary of State and his colleagues in government. However, the opposition in the House and in the country is such that the third runway will not be built.

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the House had to listen to that tirade of observations, which did not deal with any of the issues, but I suppose we get used to that from the Liberal Democrats. The party is not back to the future but back to the past.
	It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman could not address the issues that we must tackle. Sadly, like Conservative Front Benchers, he concluded that his party is prepared to put the British economy's long-term competitiveness second to that of European countries with hub airports. That is the reality of both parties' policies. They say that, through the European trading scheme, they will allow other airports, which compete directly with Heathrow, to expand at the expense of this country. That is already happening. I can demonstrate that to him and send him the statistics, if he needs them and is interested in the facts. Continental hub airports already provide the capacity that is not available at Heathrow. If he wants to ensure that British jobs are transported to the continent, his policy is the perfect vehicle for doing so. If he pretends that in doing so he will somehow save carbon, he needs to understand more about the agreement on the ETS, which his party supports. He supports the approach that we have set out and agreed on the European trading of carbon. That policy will allow continental hub airports to expand at Heathrow, so he really needs to think through what he is arguing for if he has any interest whatever in jobs, the economy and employment in this country, which I doubt he does.
	Let me deal with the two or three other points that the hon. Gentleman made. Clearly no developments will take place without safety. On green slots, I have indicated that we will set out a legal regime for determining the expansion of capacity at Heathrow, so there is no doubt that it will be governed by the law. We will bring forward legislation where necessary that will govern the extra capacity, so there can be no doubt of our absolute commitment to ensure expansion consistent with our environmental objectives, as set out in the White Paper and as brought up to date today, in the light of our determination to save carbon and put this country at the forefront of carbon saving around the world.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's point about a vote in the House, he well knows the position in the United Kingdom and in Parliament. If he is saying that every major transport decision, infrastructure decision and planning decision will henceforth be subject to a vote in the House of Commons, he had better make clear his party's policy.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will probably know that I could fill an hour on this subject myself, but I am afraid that we do not have that luxury of time available. I am all too aware that a considerable number of hon. Members have knowledge of this subject. We have an important statement on Equitable Life, for which I know many hon. Members are waiting, and also the important debate on Gaza. I therefore appeal to hon. Members please to understand if I am very strict about the brevity and singularity of supplementary questions from hereon in. I would equally appeal to the Secretary of State in giving his answers not to go anywhere outside his brief.

Louise Ellman: It is vital that there should be proper recognition of the significance of Heathrow as an international hub. It is critical for jobs and for this country. However, what is the process for assessing whether the environmental concerns set out can be met? Although I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement about high-speed rail, it appears that the plans for high-speed rail—if indeed it happens—will stop in the west midlands. Could he clarify what that means?

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I outlined the process earlier. It is clearly necessary, in light of the 2003 White Paper, that we should address the conditions set out on environmental grounds. That is what I sought to do in my statement. As for the position beyond 2020, we have made it clear that we will seek guidance from the Committee on Climate Change, which will construct the methodology by which we satisfy that 2050 obligation, and that we will ensure that any extra capacity is subject to the tests that I have outlined.
	As for high-speed rail, I made it clear that it is obvious from any assessment of our requirements that our rail network is working extremely hard and that, as of today, we need to contemplate long-term decisions for the future. Therefore, not only will I invite the company to look at the clear case for a new line to the west midlands, but equally, as I made clear in my statement, it will look beyond the west midlands at the possibility of a high-speed line right to Scotland.

Theresa May: As a result of today's announcements, my constituents face the prospect of a reduction in their quality of life with more planes flying overhead, restriction in driving their cars locally and a far worse train service in Crossrail. I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that as a result of today's announcement, nobody will take this Government seriously on the environment again. On a very specific point, when terminal 5 was announced, the then Secretary of State promised us a cap on the number of flights a year of 480,000. The Government have now broken their word, and this Secretary of State is playing the same game. In today's statement he says, "I want there to be a limit on the initial use of the third runway so that the increase in aircraft movements does not exceed 125,000 a year." That is an aspiration, not a commitment. Will he now say that it is a commitment, how it will be put in place and why my constituents should believe him today any more than they believed the previous Transport Secretary who put a cap on flights?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the right hon. Lady approaches significant investment in road, rail and aviation as somehow matters for criticism. The truth is that we are putting enormous sums of public money into improving our road and rail network and ensuring that this country has the appropriate international gateways to allow people—including, I am sure, people in her constituency, given the profile of the kinds of people who use Heathrow regularly—to do business. They are the better-off and those engaged in business. It is precisely the people who live in places such as Maidenhead who will benefit most from the investment that we are making in transport.
	I set out very clearly the position on the increase beyond 125,000. Obviously it is vital, given the importance to our economy and every economy of constraining carbon emissions, that we put in place a new regime for determining how those extra slots will be allocated over and above the 125,000. They will take into account our progress towards the 2050 target of matching our carbon emissions to 2005 levels. The process is very clear.

John McDonnell: The decision today, for my constituents, is an absolute disgrace. The commitments that have been given on the conditions to be attached are spin. They are as worthless as the commitment that there would be no third runway. The decision is a betrayal of future generations, in terms of the environment, and a betrayal of my constituents, who will lose their homes, their schools, their cemeteries, their churches and their gurdwara. It is a betrayal of this House, and of democracy, not to have a vote in the House. We are not asking for a vote on every infrastructure project; we are asking for the most significant project in a generation to be brought to this House for a vote. Will there be a vote, and why not?

Geoff Hoon: I have made clear the position of the House in relation to such matters. It is a long-standing position that the House does not vote on quasi-judicial or planning matters. Nevertheless, I entirely understand that my hon. Friend puts his case with his customary passion on behalf of his constituents, but this is an issue for the country. Heathrow is a national airport serving the whole of the country. Necessarily, when judgments have to be made about the interests of the country, those decisions have to be made, however difficult they are— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) must— [Interruption.]
	 John McDonnell , Member for  Hayes and Harlington , having conducted himself in a grossly disorderly manner, was named by the Deputy Speaker.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That John McDonnell be suspended from the service of the House.— ( Ian Lucas .)
	 A Division was called, but no Members being appointed Tellers for the Noes, the Deputy Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.
	 Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered, That John McDonnell be suspended from the service of the House.

Kate Hoey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify something? You say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is suspended, and many of us support not necessarily what he has done, but why he has done it—the fact that we are not going to have a vote in this House. Can you explain how long he will be suspended for?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to the hon. Lady is five days. I counsel the House that I understand that the strength of feeling on this matter is very great, but many hon. Members are not only wishing to question the Secretary of State on the matter, but waiting for the other important business. I am sure that there will be other occasions when Members' voices will be heard on a matter of this importance. We should proceed. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington must now withdraw from the service of the House— [ Interruption. ] Without further comment.
	 Accordingly John McDonnell, Member for Hayes and Harlington, withdrew from the House.

John Randall: One condition that the Government have not considered at all is what they are going to do with those many thousands of people who will be evicted from their homes. There will be those who have to move because their quality of life will be shattered; they will not be able to sleep any more. Have the Government, or the Secretary of State's Department, considered where those people will be housed in an already overcrowded area?

Geoff Hoon: The difficulty that I have with the hon. Gentleman's question is that, as I set out in my statement, and as he knows well, having considered the issue over a long period, the numbers affected by the 57-decibel limit, which has been the standard limit for many years, have fallen dramatically from 2 million in the mid-1970s to a quarter of a million and falling today. The impact of noise has dramatically changed over that period. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) talked about devastation. The last time I looked at property prices in places such as Maidenhead and west London, there was no shortage of people willing to move to those areas, and apparently no impact on property prices.  [ Interruption. ] Property prices are far higher there than they are in my constituency simply because people want to live in those places.  [ Interruption. ] They want to live in those places knowing full well that they will be living in the proximity of Heathrow airport, so there is something seriously inconsistent about what Opposition Members are saying.  [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the House that we will make more progress if every hon. Member gives a hearing to whoever I have called to address the House. Otherwise, we shall slow down and prejudice other matters as we go along. I hope for real brevity; the comments so far have been far too wordy. I promise the House that I understand the passion on this subject, but I am sure that we will come back to it on many occasions.

Fiona Mactaggart: Will the Secretary of State guarantee the electrification of the Great Western line, and will he ensure that the interests of a community such as Slough, which could be damaged by the siting of this proposed new railway station, will be listened to in the proposed decisions about the surface infrastructure?

Geoff Hoon: I made it clear that there is a strong case for electrifying the Great Western line, along with another of our great railway lines. I believe that that should be part of a comprehensive programme, and I made it clear that we would make a further statement later once greater details have been addressed. I did not wish to mislead my hon. Friend in any way with regard to what I said about the hub. Our proposals on the hub are for a site much closer to west London, on land already owned by Network Rail, at the junction of the existing Great Western line and the proposed Crossrail line. A Heathrow hub would not necessarily have to be placed close to Heathrow.

Justine Greening: The Secretary of State met BAA and the unions, but can he tell the House when he has ever met directly any of the communities that will be affected? Will he come to Putney to meet my constituents to explain to them why their quality of life and environment should be destroyed by more planes, more noise and more pollution? If he will not come, will he explain why? I can assure him that he would get a very big audience.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Once I assumed this position, the consultation having been completed, I regretted that on legal advice I was unable to meet communities. I visited the area, and went carefully around the perimeter of Heathrow, visiting the various places affected— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady should listen, instead of getting exasperated. Now that the consultation has concluded and I have made the decision, I am in a position to meet those communities, and I would be delighted to do so.

Alan Keen: I have campaigned across party political lines, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). We all understand his passion. I say to the Secretary of State that it was with massive relief I heard him announce that he would not press ahead with mixed mode. That will affect not only my constituency, but Brentford and Isleworth, Richmond Park, Twickenham, Putney—

Stephen Pound: Ealing, North.

Alan Keen: I will add Ealing, North if my hon. Friend likes, but I am not so sure about that.
	The decision will also affect Battersea and places further east. I am most grateful to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, who listened carefully to our arguments. Even though the Cranford agreement is going, which I am sad about, that will at least benefit the constituents in Maidenhead, Windsor and places like that. We have to give and take on such issues.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he has campaigned vigorously on behalf of constituents, and has done so successfully, if I may say so. I looked carefully at the results of the consultation, and it is clear, as I mentioned in my statement, that people value the alternation of the existing two runways. The ending of the Cranford agreement will allow a more even distribution of noise. It will reduce the noise impact on large numbers of people. I am extremely grateful for his efforts, and for drawing those matters to my attention.

Susan Kramer: The constituents of Richmond Park will be standing shoulder to shoulder with the constituents of Hayes and Harlington and the people of Sipson in this continuing campaign to oppose the third runway, and I believe that we will succeed. The Secretary of State did not say what would happen to the 700 families in Sipson that will lose their homes and, as yet, have nowhere to go. The history of Heathrow has been one of continual broken promises: they are abandoned as soon as they become inconvenient. My constituents will be relieved to hear the words he has said on mixed mode, but how can they have confidence in what he has said, rather than consider it as a temporary measure to abate opposition while progress on the third runway goes ahead?

Geoff Hoon: I have to make similar remarks to the hon. Lady as those I made to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The history of Heathrow is inevitably a history of expansion. It is a history that reflects the demands of the people of the United Kingdom and, no doubt, the demands of the hon. Lady's constituents, to travel on business, for pleasure and to visit family and friends around the world. The expansion of our airports is a direct result of the expansion of that demand. If the population of the United Kingdom did not wish to travel, airlines would not be providing services and, in turn, airports would not need to develop. I assume that she believes that only those who are sufficiently wealthy to afford ever higher air fares should be the ones who can take advantage of travel. That is not the position of the Government. We believe that we must respond to people's increased demand for travel in all ways, which is why it is important to put the statement about transport infrastructure in the context of what we have to do to satisfy that demand for travel in the 21st century. Sadly, her party's policy is mired somewhere in the 19th century.

Ruth Kelly: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what is truly a courageous and far-sighted decision to give the go-ahead to a third runway at Heathrow, and to consider seriously the case for new high-speed rail. I welcome, too, the commitment in his statement to look at the economic regulation of airports. Is it not now the time to consider tough new service standards for passengers? For example, any new runway that is built could not ever run at 99 per cent. capacity, as the current runways do, so passengers will benefit not just from a bigger Heathrow, but from a better Heathrow.

Geoff Hoon: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work as Secretary of State for Transport, which allowed this decision to take place. I must say that there have been times when I wish that she had taken the decision, but she nevertheless contributed greatly to the ability to have the decision taken. As she emphasises, the need for the decision results from the existing capacity at Heathrow. When the House debated the matter before Christmas, several Conservative Members referred to the importance of improving the airport, which no one can argue against. However, one of the practical problems faced by users of the airport, and their biggest complaint, is delay. Those delays are the direct result of operating an airport at 99 per cent. capacity. The slightest difficulty in the organisation of the airport leads to long delays, not only of hours but sometimes of days. The Conservative party needs to think about that.

Ian Taylor: Heathrow is a fixture and is important for the south-east economy as well as that of the rest of the country. Therefore, it needs to be efficient, and on that basis I welcome the Secretary of State's decision. The issue is an emotional one, but my constituents will benefit, particularly if stacking—one of the consequences of lack of capacity at Heathrow—is reduced. Secondly, I welcome his efforts to constrain the environmental effects, because that will pull through new technologies—modern aircraft such as the A380 have a much smaller noise footprint over a given area. But will he comment on the alternatives offered by rail? The problem is that rail transport per kilometre and per passenger gives off more CO2 than an equivalent use of aircraft. If energy is consumed on the basis of what we produce currently from gas and coal, the CO2 emitted is far greater. At least the French have nuclear energy, which reduces the impact of their rail travel.

Geoff Hoon: I had the privilege of shadowing the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister with responsibility for technology, and saw his rigorous approach to scientific and technological matters. I am delighted that he continues to take that approach in the same independent manner. We should improve not only the operation of the airport but people's access, which is one of the conditions that we set out in 2003. I have set out a number of proposals that will undoubtedly improve access. In answer to his question, however, it is often overlooked that running diesel engines at high speed is carbon-inefficient, whereas running electrified engines at high speed, particularly on the basis of the changes proposed to ensure that more renewable electricity energy is generated, will make a real difference to the carbon impact of our transport network.

Martin Salter: Although there is not nearly enough in the Transport Secretary's statement to drag me into the Lobby to vote in favour of a third Heathrow runway, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that the dropping of mixed mode lifts the immediate threat of intensifying aircraft noise across communities as far afield as Reading, Watford and High Wycombe. The longer term prospects, however, are grim. Surface access to Heathrow from the west is a joke, as his Department acknowledges. We need direct rail access to London Heathrow airport. Is he giving the go-ahead today for a third runway at Heathrow, or two and a half runways, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

Geoff Hoon: I think I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. Certainly, it is right not to pursue the short-term benefit that would otherwise flow from mixed mode. It is right to take account of the impact of that in the surrounding area, and that is why I reached my conclusion. I agree with him that it is necessary to improve surface access to the airport, and there are several proposals under way that will do that. In addition, I mentioned in my statement BAA's proposal in relation to Airtrack and direct surface links into terminal 5. My high-speed proposals will also significantly improve people's ability to travel into the airport by public transport—after all, it is a major ambition to reduce the number of people who drive their cars to Heathrow, to reduce their carbon impact.

Robert Wilson: Few people will take comfort from either part of the Secretary of State's statement today. My constituents already suffer considerable noise pollution from Heathrow. The statement contains no real commitment to Airtrack, no money to extend Crossrail, no commitment to a third Thames bridge in my constituency and nothing to reduce pollution. Has not the Secretary of State merely proved the old adage that the emptiest vessel rattles the loudest?

Geoff Hoon: I will send the hon. Gentleman a briefing on Crossrail, as he has misunderstood. The funding for Crossrail is in place.  [Interruption.] The only threat to Crossrail—perhaps the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs. Villiers) is giving us the benefit of her point of view from a sedentary position—is from the prospect of a Conservative Government. The Conservative party's proposal contains an unfunded gap. If the Conservative party cuts transport infrastructure as it proposes to do, Crossrail might not have sufficient funding.

Kate Hoey: The country will not understand how we, in the mother of Parliaments, representing our constituents, cannot have a vote on such a crucial issue. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be honest and explain to the House—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] I am sure that he is always honest; I mean that in the widest sense. Is he worried that if we had a vote, his decision on the Heathrow runway would not command the support of the House?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has been a Member of the House for far longer than I have. During that period, she has seen Ministers make a range of uncomfortable decisions in relation to planning and infrastructure, and such decisions have never been the subject of a specific vote. Clearly, the House must express its opinion on a wide range of issues, and as a former Leader of the House I would strongly support that. However, individual planning decisions have never been subject to a vote of the House of Commons. Recently, when the Planning Bill went through, it was not accepted by the House that specific planning projects should have specific votes. I hope she will accept that throughout her time in the House, it has never been the case that such votes took place.

David Evennett: South-east London residents will be bitterly disappointed by the Secretary of State's decision today, as they will inevitably suffer increased pollution and noise as a result of a third runway. Is the Secretary of State not concerned that our children and grandchildren will inevitably suffer because of his decision?

Geoff Hoon: I do not know exactly how many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents work at Heathrow airport, but some 100,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, depend on it. It is the largest source of employment in the south-east. Many of those people about whom he is concerned will thank the Government for the decision, as they will know that their jobs and livelihoods are being protected and preserved.

Andrew Slaughter: If my right hon. Friend understands that mixed mode would cause additional misery to those on current flight paths, why does he not understand that tens of thousands of people—many of them my constituents—who will be affected for the first time by a third runway will have their quality of life severely depleted? If he is wedded to airport expansion in the south-east, why does he not consider alternative sites, which would cause a fraction of the disruption?

Geoff Hoon: I assure my hon. Friend that we did consider alternative sites. If he has another look at the 2003 White Paper, he will see that some 400 alternative sites were considered. A shortlist was drawn up, and those sites were considered in still more detail. Necessarily, my hon. Friend makes representations on behalf of his constituents; I understand that. I hope, however, that he and they will look at the improvements in technology since 1975—the significant reductions in noise and in the impact on air quality. That will continue; the process will not suddenly draw to a halt. Significant improvements, such as aircraft engines causing less noise, less pollution and less harm to his constituents, will continue.

Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State has said that he expects the new runway to be operational early in the period between 2015 and 2020. Can he assure us that if that does not prove feasible, he will reconsider the issue of mixed mode? Many people who use Heathrow are very worried about the possibility of the airports becoming redundant.

Geoff Hoon: At the heart of my decision is a recognition that it is important to provide Heathrow with greater capacity. To that extent, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We have set out a way forward in terms of providing extra capacity for the airport, subject to strict environmental conditions, but I do not foresee any difficulty resulting from the decision that we have just made.

Clive Efford: Residents of south-east London will welcome the decision not to proceed with mixed mode, but they and everyone else will also be concerned about the impact of my right hon. Friend's proposals on climate change. Can he clarify the role that the Climate Change Committee will play in overseeing the environmental measures that he has announced? Will it merely comment on those measures, or will it have to assess the likelihood of their success in achieving the goals that he has set out before any approvals are given? If my right hon. Friend cannot clarify that, people will lose confidence in the committee, and in all that he has announced today about the environment and the third runway.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, and for the representations that he has made on these issues.
	It is clearly important that, in presenting arguments for expansion as I have done today, we recognise the significant climate change implications not just for aviation but for all transport. That is why I have set out a clear path forward that will allow the Climate Change Committee to present its proposals for how the Government should meet their 2050 obligations. There will be a detailed programme of work, involving the committee, to ensure that the Government are on track to meet not just their general target, but specific aviation and transport targets.

Philip Hollobone: Having been embarrassed into doing so by local pressure, the Government have announced proposals to widen the heavily congested A14 around Kettering. Will my constituents have a chance to examine the details of the plan?

Geoff Hoon: As I said in my statement, a more detailed document is in the Vote Office and available to Members. I am sure that it will provide the hon. Gentleman with more information.

Michael Meacher: If NOx exceedances are already well above permitted European Union levels, how can they conceivably be brought below those mandatory ceilings if there is a 50 per cent. or even a 25 per cent. increase in flight movements? Have the Government sought from BAA precise details of the mechanisms that are intended to bring them below those ceilings, and by how much each mechanism is expected to do so if there are 600 additional flight movements per day? If the Government have that evidence, will they publish it now, in full? If they do not have the evidence, is it not irresponsible for them to rely on BAA assurances without evidence to support them, especially given that the present level of exceedances will lead to EU fines of perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds per day after January 2015?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend will forgive me if I am slightly puzzled by his observation. He will know from his ministerial experience that air quality testing is an independent exercise, conducted quite separately from BAA, and that the exceedance figures are published and readily available to Members of Parliament. He will also know from his previous experience that the EU air quality directive is measured in relation to people and their homes, and that testing takes place throughout the country.
	As I made absolutely clear in my statement, we do have problems with exceedances, which are far greater in some parts of the country—including parts of central London—than at Heathrow. I am not making any excuses for Heathrow in saying that, but what is critically important is for us to ensure that those exceedances are brought within the terms of the directive, if possible by 2010 but if necessary, following an application for an exemption, by 2015. That will depend crucially on action in relation to motor vehicles, not aviation.

Anne Main: I fear that the proposal has been given an over-optimistic greenwash, and that it relies heavily on a particular type of plane for its delivery. Can the Secretary of State tell me which particular plane he has in mind, or which particular group of aerospace companies is proposing to deliver the plane by 2015?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has put her question in that way. This is not about a particular plane. Every new aircraft that comes into service has reduced carbon emissions, improved efficiency and lower noise levels. As I made clear earlier, steady progress has continued in that regard since the mid-1970s. We have far more efficient aircraft today. Every time the airlines bring new aircraft into service, there is a marginal improvement in their emissions.

Anne Main: So any plane will do?

Geoff Hoon: It is not a question of "any plane will do". I have made clear that it is necessary to ensure that the newest, most efficient, most up-to-date aircraft fill the new slots, but that is something that the airlines themselves will accept and encourage. If the hon. Lady looks at the kind of aircraft that generally operate from Heathrow, she will see that most airlines use their newest, most up-to-date aircraft in those existing slots.

Karen Buck: My right hon. Friend understands the symbolic significance of Heathrow expansion in the context of the climate change agenda. Does he accept that there is enormous scepticism about the compatibility of the increase in flights and aviation emissions with Britain's capacity to meet our reduced carbon emissions target by 2050? Can he tell us what proportion of that target will be accounted for by aviation emissions?

Geoff Hoon: That will be something for the Climate Change Committee to determine, but I am absolutely confident that we can satisfy the commitments that we have made generally on carbon change within a regime involving aviation. We are not simply saying that aviation will get a free ride, or that it can go on expanding at the expense of other parts of our economy. There will be a determined effort, both nationally in terms of the target that I have set out on behalf of the Government and internationally, which means persuading other countries to accept a similar approach as part of our Copenhagen negotiations.

John Mason: If we are serious about the environment, surely we need to move as many people as possible out of planes and on to trains. That is particularly relevant to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Should not speeding up the west and east coast main lines be a priority, especially beyond Preston? The line between Preston and Carlisle is a problem.

Geoff Hoon: As I said in my statement, it is an equal priority. We must not only ensure that we speed up journey times across the United Kingdom to improve our transport infrastructure in the United Kingdom, but recognise that we need effective communications around the world. We must do both.

Joan Ryan: It seems to me that, difficult though the decision is, it is a decision about the national economic interest and not just about London. It is perfectly legitimate for the Conservatives to take the position that they have taken, but it is not legitimate to ignore the impact on the national economy. I hope that in the coming months the Secretary of State will take time to ensure that we fulfil our responsibility to make certain that the population know what the impact of the Conservatives' policies would be if a third runway did not go ahead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is straying well beyond the scope of the statement. I call the Secretary of State to reply very briefly.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observation, with which I entirely agree.

Mark Lancaster: Given the appalling service received by commuters in the very first week of the newly refurbished west coast main line, does the Secretary of State at least understand why they are slightly cynical about his promises and the impact of future investment in the railways? May I ask him to reassure them about the action that he will take to ensure that last week's events are not repeated?

Geoff Hoon: One of the clear economic justifications for looking hard at future capacity on our rail network and the requirement to build new lines is the increasing use of that capacity on lines such as the west coast main line. Despite the difficulties that we have faced, and while I well understand the impact on travellers in recent weeks and sympathise with them, an £8.8 billion investment is producing better, more frequent services for passengers up and down that line. There will, however, come a point when we need new capacity, particularly if rail usage continues to increase as it has in recent years. That is why we are proposing specifically a new high-speed line to the west midlands and beyond.

Martin Linton: My constituents will certainly welcome the rejection of mixed mode, which was the greatest threat to their quality of life, even if they are dismayed on environmental grounds by the continuation with the third runway. Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear to them that there will be no increase in landings over south London on to the two existing runways? Also, if he is abrogating the Cranford agreement, could he not also do away with westerly preference, which results in an undue number of flights over south London, and far beyond what is justified in terms of prevailing winds?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in making the transport case for his constituency. I have had a number of meetings with him where he has argued it extremely effectively. I am pleased to be able to respond in the way that I have in relation to mixed mode—he has argued that case extremely effectively. It is right to make allocation judgments that spread the noise around Heathrow airport more fairly, which is why we have abandoned the Cranford agreement. However, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's argument about changing the current preference in respect of the airport, because, again, that is determined largely in relation to the populations affected.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on now, to be fair to the other issues that have to be discussed. I apologise to the Members I have not been able to call, but I am sure they will be remembered collectively by the Chair when this matter comes up for discussion again.

Equitable Life

Yvette Cooper: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement in response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report on the prudential regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society from 1988 to December 2001. This is the ombudsman's second report; it was based on a four-year inquiry, and I would like to thank the ombudsman for her thorough and extensive consideration of all the issues involved. The Government have carefully considered this substantial report over some months, as it has raised complex and important issues. We agree that there has been maladministration in particular areas, and also that Government action is merited as a result.
	As the ombudsman's report sets out, Equitable Life is a mutual life assurance company whose policyholders share in the profits or losses of the business. Equitable had established a business which involved high volumes of policies with guaranteed annuity rates, and a well-advertised policy of distributing earnings as bonuses without building reserves for the future. After market conditions changed and the level of liabilities rose significantly relative to its assets, Equitable attempted to resolve this through its differential terminal bonus policy. However, when this was found unlawful by the House of Lords in 2000 and Equitable was unable to find a buyer to cover the additional liability of £1.5 billion, the society closed to new business in December 2000. As a result of these events, many policyholders now hold policies worth significantly less than they had originally expected.
	Lord Penrose's forensic report on all the events surrounding Equitable Life concluded that the society's own actions ultimately precipitated its financial difficulties in the summer of 2000. He said:
	"Principally, the society was author of its own misfortunes. Regulatory system failures were secondary factors."
	In addition, he found significant problems with the then regulatory regime, which was reactive and unintrusive. Since then, we have introduced major regulatory reforms. It is also right to look at the role of regulators within the regime that applied at the time. The parliamentary ombudsman has looked specifically at this issue—the role of the society and others being, of course, outside her remit. Her extensive report includes 10 findings of maladministration and five findings of injustice as a result.
	The Government have considered the report in detail. We have also considered the report of the Public Administration Committee, published in December, and I pay tribute to it for its work on this issue as well. We agree with the ombudsman that there was maladministration by public bodies in several areas. In particular, the Government agree that Equitable Life's regulatory returns in the period from 1990 through to 1996 in some cases raised questions which should have been resolved by the public bodies, but were not. In some cases we recognise this may have led to injustice for policyholders, although in several we believe it did not, in the context of the different regulatory regime which applied at the time. The Government also agree that the regulator should not have been satisfied that a reinsurance treaty entered into by Equitable Life justified the credit taken for it from 1998 to 2000. Equitable Life's regulatory returns gave a materially different picture of the society's regulatory solvency position because of the credit taken for the reinsurance treaty. We agree, too, that certain statements made by the Financial Services Authority after 2001 had the potential to mislead and may have caused injustice as a result. The detailed response to each finding, and the reasons supporting these conclusions, are set out in the Command Paper.
	The ombudsman's report states:
	"I am very far from concluding that everyone who has complained to me about the prudential regulation of the Society has suffered a financial loss."
	Nevertheless, it is clear that people have been affected, and have experienced significant distress due to events at Equitable Life. I think the whole House regrets the problems caused by the mismanagement of the society, and I wish to apologise to policyholders on behalf of the public bodies and successive Governments responsible for the regulation of Equitable Life between 1990 and 2001 for the maladministration we believe has taken place.
	We also need to consider the fairest way to respond to policyholders now. We have looked in detail at the ombudsman's proposal for compensation. As the House will be aware, Parliament has recognised over many years that it is not generally appropriate for the taxpayer to pay compensation even where there is regulatory failure. The responsibility to minimise risks and to prevent problems from occurring in a particular financial institution lies, first and foremost, with the people who own and run that institution. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 reaffirmed the long-standing exemption of financial regulators from liability for negligence in the courts. The ombudsman's framework covering maladministration is, of course, different from the courts' approach to negligence. Nevertheless, we believe the underlying principle remains an important one; it has informed the approach of successive Governments, and we believe it should be sustained for the future.
	It would have serious repercussions for the taxpayer, for the relationship between Governments and financial markets, and for the nature of regulation, if the taxpayer were to provide a remedy for all losses every time the regulator fails to prevent a financial institution from getting into trouble. Nevertheless, we are concerned by the representations we have received from Members and others, both directly and through debates, that some policyholders have been disproportionately affected by the events at Equitable. It is on that basis that we believe it is right in this case for Government to set up an ex gratia payment scheme to help.
	To do this in a fair way, there are a series of important issues that we need to take into account. In particular, we need to take account of the role and responsibility of Equitable Life and other parties. As the Public Administration Committee said in its December report:
	"The current board of Equitable Life and many others have acknowledged the legitimacy of Lord Penrose's conclusion; few people dispute that its former management were primarily to blame."
	Even where there was maladministration, there was also a responsibility on the part of the society. Let us take, for example, the case of the reinsurance treaty. Although the FSA failed to follow up problems with the treaty, it was still the decision of the society to enter into the agreement in the first place, and it was the society which had primary responsibility to ensure that the treaty operated in the way intended. The Select Committee also said:
	"The fairness of requiring taxpayers to compensate Equitable Life's policyholders firmly depends upon making sure that public funds do not pay for loss that is fairly attributable to the poor performance of the stock market or to the mismanagement of Equitable Life's former directors that could not have been prevented by adequate regulation."
	Secondly, as the ombudsman herself has said, the Government also have a responsibility to taxpayers generally to balance competing demands on the public purse. Her report states:
	"I recognise that the public interest is a relevant consideration and that it is appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payment of compensation in this case."
	It is important to note that neither the ombudsman nor the Government has been able to estimate the cost of her recommendation, as we do not have detailed information on the relative losses experienced by different groups of policyholders or on the factors affecting the losses of different groups.
	Thirdly, we also want to focus on those who have been hardest hit. The ombudsman has noted:
	"The particular circumstances of each complainant vary enormously—in terms of their age, their involvement with the Society, the amount that they claim to have lost as a result of that involvement, and the degree of reliance that they have now, or had in the past, on income derived from their investments with the Society."
	Many hon. Members have made representations to us on this issue.
	Fourthly, we need to take into account important practical considerations. Neither we nor the ombudsman currently have much of the important information or assessments that we need to implement a payments scheme. The ombudsman, commenting on her own proposals, said that
	"the creation of such a scheme would not be straightforward by any means".
	We have considered all of these points, and we intend now to set up a scheme to make ex gratia payments to those who have been disproportionately affected. In order to do so, we have today asked Equitable Life to make available its detailed policyholder information. We have also asked former Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal, the right hon. Sir John Chadwick, to look at the information and advise us on the following points: first, the extent of relative losses suffered by Equitable Life policyholders; secondly, the proportion of those losses that should properly be attributed to the maladministration accepted by the Government and to the actions of Equitable Life and others; thirdly, which classes of policyholder have suffered the greatest impact as a result of the maladministration accepted by the Government; and fourthly, the factors arising from this work that the Government might take into account when reaching a final view on determining whether a disproportionate impact has been suffered. Sir John's terms of reference are being published today.
	The ombudsman recommended that a payments scheme should be completed two and a half years after the decision to pay out. The Select Committee said that it could not assess whether that was viable, and our initial assessment of the ombudsman's approach is that it might take significantly longer than that to implement fully.
	Many hon. Members have raised concerns about the length of time policyholders have had to wait for resolution of this case, and given that many have already retired, we believe it is important to set up a scheme that can pay out as swiftly as possible, taking account of the difficult practical considerations involved. We have therefore asked Sir John to advise as quickly as he is able, and that includes providing interim updates and conclusions on an ongoing basis, so that work can progress on the practical issues in parallel without waiting unnecessarily for all his work to be concluded. We do not want to be constrained by the assessment that we have made of the ombudsman's proposals in setting out the pace at which we can implement this scheme.
	The Government will therefore introduce a fair payment scheme for policyholders who have suffered a disproportionate impact. We will do so with the benefit of Sir John's advice and taking account of the position of the public finances, as well as practical considerations. For the reasons that I have explained, we do not believe it would be right to set up a compensation scheme in the way that the ombudsman proposed, but we do believe that this is the right response. I hope the House will recognise that there is no easy solution to the problems at Equitable Life and the faults that have been found. The events at Equitable Life have been very difficult and complex and have caused problems for policyholders across the country. The consideration of those events has already informed substantial regulatory reform, as well as wider reviews of corporate governance. Today's response sets out new help for policyholders that we believe is fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. It continues to support a sensible approach for the future, and I commend it to the House.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the ombudsman on the way in which she investigated this matter—she has done her job in an exemplary fashion. I would also like to thank the policyholders and their action groups who have made sure that this issue was always on our agenda—their persistence has paid off. After years of trying to block compensation, the Government have finally admitted today that the regulators failed Equitable Life's policyholders and that they deserve justice.
	It has been a long, hard fight by campaigners, made longer and harder by the intransigence of a Government who have consistently sought to evade taking responsibility for what happened at Equitable Life. In 2004, the Treasury ignored the Penrose report's findings that the regulators had failed. The Treasury then tried to argue that the ombudsman could not investigate a decade of regulatory failure. Having lost that argument, the Treasury bombarded the ombudsman with new information and a 500-page submission on her draft report, so that a report that was due at the end of 2005 was finally published in July 2008, and for the past six months the Government have been sitting on it. Even this statement has been delayed—the Government promised it in the autumn, the Prime Minister promised it before Christmas and we have been waiting until January to get a copy of it.
	Why has the Treasury has sought to block, frustrate and delay this report, and block justice for policyholders? It has done so to hide the Prime Minister's embarrassment. The most damning findings of maladministration related to the period since 1997—a period when the Treasury and the Prime Minister had responsibility for regulation. While the Treasury dithered and delayed to spare the Prime Minister, 30,000 policyholders died—they will never see the justice that they deserved—and policyholders living on reduced pensions and annuities paid the price for the Government's failure to act sooner.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury quoted Lord Penrose's comment that
	"the society was author of its own misfortunes."
	However, he also concluded that
	"the practices of the Society's management could not have been sustained over a material part of the 1990s had there been in place an appropriate regulatory structure."
	The ombudsman's hard-hitting report backed that conclusion. The regulators failed to use their powers to stop the destruction of Equitable Life. Report after report shows that policyholders were let down by regulators. Why have we had to wait until now for the Government to concede that compensation should be paid?
	In 1989, the then shadow Trade and Industry Secretary—now the Prime Minister—asked
	"why it took an internal inquiry, a departmental inquiry and now the ombudsman's investigation...before justice began to be done?"—[ Official Report, 19 December 1989; Vol. 164, c. 204.]
	Twenty years later, we ask the same the question today. Why did the Government wait so long to recognise the regulatory failings that led to Equitable Life's policyholders losing money?
	We have always believed that policyholders should be compensated if maladministration was found, so we welcome the Government's announcement. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury answer some simple questions? She is aware that policyholders have waited some time for justice and she said that she had no timetable to indicate when they would receive it. When will Sir John give an interim report on his work? She also announced what appears to be a hardship fund. Why has she rejected the Public Administration Committee's conclusion that
	"the payment of compensation is not a matter of charity but...of justice"?
	Who does she expect will benefit from this fund? Will it depend on how much people have invested or how much they have lost, or on their broader financial position? Is this about means-testing compensation rather than about compensating people for injustice? Can the Treasury explain whether it has imposed a cap on how much compensation can be paid to policyholders, either individually or as a group?
	The Treasury could have decided to compensate Equitable's policyholders when Lord Penrose reported five years ago, but instead it has dragged this out to save the face of the Prime Minister—and it is policyholders who have paid the price. Now the Government have conceded the case for compensation they can no longer drag their feet. Justice cannot be denied any longer.

Yvette Cooper: I am disappointed by the tone of the hon. Gentleman's response. The Government recognise that serious events occurred at Equitable. As the Penrose report set out, those were principally the responsibility of the society. However, we recognise that maladministration took place. Today, I have apologised to the House and to policyholders on behalf of successive Governments and the public bodies that were involved. I would hope that the hon. Gentleman's party will join in that apology on behalf of the previous Conservative Governments, who were, of course, also responsible for the regulatory bodies in a way that affected Equitable Life and policyholders over that period.
	The hon. Gentleman also quoted from the Penrose report, which said that events might not have unfolded in the way that they did had there been in place an appropriate regulatory structure. The Penrose report indeed pointed to a series of faults with the previous regulatory regime, which stretched back to the previous insurance Act and the regulatory framework that had been put in place and supported by the previous Conservative Government over very many years.
	I did not seek to make that a political point in my statement and my response to the House. However, as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, I must point out that it was this Government who introduced substantial reform of the regulatory process, which took account of many of the failings by Equitable Life and was based on the Penrose report. Indeed, that report welcomed many of the reforms that were under way as a sensible response to the failings of the regulatory regime as it affected Equitable Life— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but the crossfire of sedentary comments across the Chamber is doing us no good at all.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, and I shall try to deal with them. He asked when we expected Sir John to report. We would like him to report continually on an interim basis, because we need to engage in practical work to deliver a payment scheme alongside his work. We should not simply wait for the judge to come up with final conclusions, but work alongside his assessments, so we have asked him to update us continually on his work and conclusions.
	On the question of why we have not pursued the overall principle of compensation as set out by both the ombudsman and—as the hon. Gentleman rightly said—the Select Committee, I set that out in my statement. It is important that financial regulation does not come with a taxpayer guarantee. It is important for the future interests of the taxpayer and the relationship between the Government and the financial markets that if a company gets into trouble or takes dodgy action and the regulator fails to prevent that, compensation by the taxpayer is not automatic. I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that that would fundamentally change the relationship between the regulator and the financial markets, and between the Government and the financial markets.
	We recognise, however, the points that many hon. Members have made about the difficult circumstances facing their constituents as a result of the events at Equitable Life. That is why it is right to set up the ex gratia payment scheme. That is the right approach, and I hope that hon. Members recognise that although the process is not simple, we are trying to be fair to both policyholders and the taxpayer, and to take the matter forward as fairly as possible.

Vincent Cable: I thank the Chief Secretary for her statement. I welcome the apology, and I welcome more guardedly—because we do not yet know the full details—the compensation principle. However, that comes after the long, shabby and disreputable treatment of policyholders. The endless delay and dissimulation have angered up to 1 million of them, many of whom have lost up to half their pension to the extraordinary extent that a period of maladministration that occurred largely under the previous Government has become a massive own goal for this Government. That makes it all the more surprising that the Conservative shadow Chancellor did not think it worth his while to turn up today—[Hon. Members: "What about the Chancellor?"] Well, I am here.
	We are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Prime Minister establishing his reputation as a parliamentary star by speaking for the then Labour Opposition in defence of Barlow Clowes's policyholders. He made a passionate speech in their defence. A question that has often been asked since is why the compensation that was eventually accorded to those investors was not reproduced for Equitable Life policyholders. The answer was always that nothing could be done without an ombudsman's report. We now have one, nine years after the company's collapse, and it is worth rehearsing the endless delays, many of which were deliberate.
	The ombudsman said that, in 2001, the then Chancellor's delay in holding an inquiry was "iniquitous and unfair". There was then a long period before the Penrose report and the establishment of another ombudsman inquiry. Eventually, last year, even after the Maxwellisation process, there was a six-month delay before the matter came to the House. However, it is here, and the Government have announced a compensation scheme.
	Has the Treasury doctrine of compensation not changed fundamentally following what happened last year with the Icelandic banks, when people who had chased yields in high-risk accounts were fully and promptly protected by the Treasury? In contrast, prudent, careful investors in Equitable Life have been kept waiting for a highly uncertain scheme for the best part of a decade. That matters, not just because many of them have retired, but because many of them have died. The issue would never have been maintained but for the persistence of the Equitable Members Action Group, which I commend.
	Finally, can we try to bring the matter to a conclusion by having an early debate not just on today's statement and the ombudsman's report, but on the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration and the European Parliament's EQUI report, so that we can look forward to early settlement of many deserving cases?

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the key elements of my response to the report. Hon. Members asked about the whereabouts of the Chancellor, and he is in Prague talking to the European Presidency about international banking reforms and capital adequacy in advance of the next ECOFIN. Clearly, it is for the Conservative Front-Bench Members to explain the whereabouts of the shadow Chancellor and Chief Secretary.

David Gauke: Where is the Chancellor?

Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench are clearly not listening. I have just explained the Chancellor's location.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to what happened with the Icelandic banks and asked whether the approach to compensation had changed. That issue was different because it involved systemic risk. It arose at a time when there was considerable movement of money from one account to another, and significant anxiety about confidence in the banking system as a whole and in retail deposits and savings. In that climate, we believed that it was right, for reasons of financial stability, to put in place additional support for the existing financial services compensation scheme. He will be aware that that scheme is funded by the industry. We recognised that additional Government support was needed, just as additional Government guarantees were needed for Northern Rock because of the wider risk to financial stability. I do not think that that sets a precedent for other individual cases and institutions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for an early debate, and I will pass his request to business managers.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Without disrespect to the importance of the subject—I doubt whether any hon. Member does not have constituents who are concerned about it—we cannot continue with it for an unlimited time as many hon. Members want to take part in the debate on Gaza, which is also important to many people. My aim is to conclude this debate at 2.20, so I beg for brief questions and answers to facilitate that.

Tony Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the essentials of the ombudsman's report. The decision was difficult for the Government, but I think they have come to the right conclusion. The apology is right, the acceptance of maladministration is right, the acceptance of injustice is right, and setting up a compensation scheme is right. Nevertheless, why did the Government decide not to adopt the ombudsman's recommendation to set up an independent tribunal, but instead to ask Sir John Chadwick to give further advice?
	Secondly, will my right hon. Friend explain the phrase "disproportionate impact"? As I understand it, she is trying to identify a category of policyholders who have suffered a disproportionate impact and saying that only they will come under the rubric of a compensation scheme. Does that not excessively narrow the scope of such compensation in a way that the ombudsman did not recommend?

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the work that my hon. Friend's Committee has done to look into this matter. The ombudsman's recommendation was to set up an independent tribunal that would then consider individual cases. We believe that in order to set up a payment scheme, we need additional advice on the position that policyholders are in. We also need to consider the relative losses they experience, as well as at how far those losses can be fairly attributed to the regulatory failure and to mistakes made by the society and others. My hon. Friend will recognise that we need independent advice on the issue and that that is preferable to the Government's simply making a decision on how to apportion responsibility fairly. The issue is complex and that is why we felt that appointing an independent judge to provide us with that advice would be the most sensible way to proceed, as well as the swiftest, rather than setting up an independent tribunal to do the same job.
	My hon. Friend raised the matter of disproportionate impact. We have asked Sir John to give us advice on how we should interpret disproportionate impact by considering the experiences of policyholders. We would expect that interpretation to include consideration of the extent of somebody's losses and how great they were as a proportion of their income—that is, at whether they were relying on that income or had other sources of income.
	We know, for example, that there is a difference, as I hope the House would recognise, between someone who relies on their Equitable Life pension for most of their income and has seen significant reductions in it as a result, and someone who might still be in work, and has alternative ways in which they can invest. For example, in the debate that took place in Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) brought up cases of his constituents who had been particularly heavily hit, while the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said that he was an Equitable policyholder. Clearly, there is a big difference between those circumstances. We believe that it is right to be able to take such circumstances into account. However, we are asking the advice of the judge in order to inform our final decisions.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Lady reflect on what she has just said? Surely the simple question is whether the Government were culpable in any shape or form, and today the Chief Secretary has admitted that they were. She has apologised, and that apology is accepted. Surely the reality is that the money lost is money lost. If the Government have any involvement in the process, they have a duty to ensure that those other people are properly compensated and not to investigate who has a right to be compensated and who has not just because some are slightly better off than others.

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is advocating a pure compensation scheme. I set out in my statement exactly why I think that that would not be the right approach and why it would fundamentally change the relationship between the Government and the financial markets were we to set up a system in which the taxpayer was always to pay out whenever there was regulatory failure. We believe that that is an important principle, but we also think that it is right to focus on those who have been hardest hit and to recognise where there has been disproportionate impact. The shadow Chancellor has also said:
	"As the Ombudsman makes clear, policyholders cannot expect to receive payments for the full losses suffered and any payment scheme must be consistent with...public finances".
	Members on both sides of the House recognise that there are difficult issues that need to be taken into account. We believe that we should be fair and recognise the difficult circumstances that some policyholders, in particular, have been hit by.

Andrew Miller: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. A considerable number of my constituents will be waiting to see the detail. On a practical point, many of the people involved are getting old—some of my constituents are getting extremely old. Within what kind of time frame—weeks, months or years—should they expect to get money in their pockets?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The ombudsman recommended a two-and-a-half-year time scale within which to begin payments and we are mindful of that recommendation. We want to set up a scheme that can pay out as speedily as possible. The ombudsman also said that there were potential difficulties and trade-offs between a scheme that is speedy and swift to implement and one that is fair to individuals and to the taxpayer. We have to take all those things into account. We will be working with Sir John on an ongoing basis to try to assess some of those practical issues as speedily as possible and we will keep the House updated on the progress that we make.

Michael Fallon: Will the estates of policyholders who have died be able to make a claim, and in which quarter of which year does she now expect the first payments to be made?

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, the issue about people's estates when they have, sadly, died is important. We will need to take it into account as part of the consideration of disproportionate impact. We will ask the advice of Sir John Chadwick on how that issue should be addressed. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the precise time scale or which steps that we will be able to take, but I can tell him that we are keen to do this as speedily as possible.

Andrew Love: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement. I have two points. First, on the time scale, she has come up with what she describes as a simpler scheme. Does that mean that it will be quicker than that suggested by the ombudsman? Secondly, she said that hardship would be a significant criterion for compensation. Will she describe that a little more? Can she reassure those who have lost significant sums of money in Equitable Life that they will still be compensated?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend asks what the time scale will be relative to the ombudsman's scheme. My view is that the ombudsman's own proposals would have taken some time to implement. We will all be aware from examples in our constituencies of different payment schemes or compensation schemes that have taken considerably longer than was originally intended. We are mindful of that and, in the design of the scheme, we need to take it strongly into account. We need to aim to design a scheme that can pay out as swiftly as possible, and that will be part of our considerations. It will also be one of the issues that we will discuss with Sir John Chadwick.
	My hon. Friend also asked what we will take into account when it comes to considering disproportionate impact. Some policies might have been hit harder than others and have been more heavily affected, and some people will have seen larger losses. The ombudsman said that she was far from concluding that all the complainants had experienced financial loss as a result of the events at Equitable. Policyholders are in a wide range of circumstances and a wide range of impacts have been experienced. It is right that we should take that all into account in designing a fair scheme.

Graham Brady: I, too, am appalled at the proposals to means-test the compensation. Given the fact that tens of thousands of policyholders have already died without compensation, may I press the urgency of compensation on the Chief Secretary? In particular, will she consider looking at interim payments for people to ensure that they get some benefit, especially for those who might be approaching the end of their lives?

Yvette Cooper: Again, we have asked Sir John to consider what disproportionate impact might be. That might include a range of issues, such as the scale of the impact on someone's policy, rather than simply their current circumstances. Secondly, I completely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the urgency. However, he will understand that there are a series of practical difficulties. We do not have the information about policyholders yet, and the information that the ombudsman held meant that she was constrained in setting out how any kind of scheme should work. We are prepared to consider whether there are ways of speeding up payments for particular groups or whether there are different approaches that can be taken, but we will need to take the advice of Sir John Chadwick and to look at the policyholder detail in order to be able to do so.

Anne Begg: I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that there needs to be conversation, and the fact that they have said that the process has to be speedy, but may I express a word of caution? Of course it has to be speedy, but it also has to be fair. With other compensation schemes, such as the financial assistance scheme and the cod war trawlermen's scheme, our experience has been that the Government have had to go back and look at them again. In some cases, there has had to be another trawl of applications. My advice is to make sure that we get the scheme right from the beginning. The scheme that we are talking about will be much more complex than either of the two compensation schemes I mentioned. I also wonder whether there is anything that MPs who have large numbers of Equitable Life policyholders in their constituencies can do to help the Government to find out about the different types of people who have been affected.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend raises an important point. She is right that the issues involved are complex. Assessing relative losses, and how far policies might have changed simply because of market conditions, raises a series of wider questions. We know that there are many people who hold similar policies with other companies whose policies changed in value, or made losses, in particular periods. So the issues are complex, and we have to take that into account.
	My hon. Friend also asked what MPs can do. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will write to all MPs with updates on what the next steps will be. I know that he will be happy to talk to her about what else MPs could do to take the process forward.

Crispin Blunt: If the scheme ever does come to a conclusion—unlike the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I do not think that the matter is concluded—it will take into account the position that the public finances are in when the scheme pays out. That position could hardly be worse. How much will that discount the possible amount of compensation?

Yvette Cooper: As I have said, we will take account of Sir John's advice, the relative losses experienced, how far the responsibility is fairly apportioned between the regulatory bodies, the society and others, and the public finances. As the ombudsman has said, it is right to do that, because in effect we are talking about taking account of the interests of taxpayers; it is fair to do so. The shadow Chancellor has said that any payment scheme
	"must be consistent with sound public finances".
	His party has a rather different view from ours about what should happen to the public finances over the next few years, so his party's assessment of that may be different from ours.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome the statement and, in particular, the apology at the start. It looks as if we are coming to the beginning of the end of this sad, long saga. My right hon. Friend has in part answered the many requests made by Members today by saying that the scheme needs to be quick so that the money can get to those individuals who live in poverty because of this saga, and who might not have much longer to live. Will she tell us, today if possible, when she expects Sir John to get back to us on the first instalment? Will she then set up a pro rata payment system, or a system that pays some money to those pensioners? Who will staff it, and what process will we Members of Parliament have to use to ensure that those affected know who to write to, and what progress is being made with their claim?

Yvette Cooper: As I have said, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will update Members of the House on the progress made. Again, we will need to take a wide range of issues into account. Clearly, we do not want a judicial process that takes many years, and it is not at all Sir John's intention to have one. We are talking about an ongoing process in which we will work with him, and we will receive his conclusions or findings as he comes to them on a monthly basis. I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific undertaking about a particular timetable, because I do not know how long it will take to complete that work.

Robert Smith: Earlier, the Minister mentioned that she could not take the route that the Government took with the banks, because in that case the Government were trying to restore financial stability. Surely we are trying to encourage investors once again to have confidence. Investors believe that they have been victims of maladministration and have had an apology; surely that apology has to be followed up by a proper compensation scheme that is related to what they lost, not their circumstances.

Yvette Cooper: I think that a fair ex gratia payment scheme will take account of what people have lost, but it is also right to take account of the wider circumstances, as we have set out. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point about people's approach towards their investments and the regulatory framework. However, the circumstances that we faced when it came to making decisions about the Icelandic banks, and the very serious financial stability problems that we faced in the autumn, were unique; that was a set of events the like of which we have not seen for many generations, and it was right to respond to those in a different way. I do not think that that necessarily has wider implications for how we deal with societies or companies in normal times.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and apology. We in the House have dealt with the issue of occupational pensions schemes over the past five years, but Equitable Life is at least 10 times bigger than that. Can she tell us how large Sir John Chadwick's office will be and how many people will be in it? Moreover, if she is to run a shadow system in the Treasury, how will that be staffed? Our experience with occupational pensions was that there was incompetence in analysing each individual case, and individual cases will be analysed in the case of Equitable Life, too. Will she report back before the summer recess to tell us where we have got to, so that we better understand the time frame? That is the key issue that most Members are concerned about.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and I will be keen to keep the House updated, and to report back at regular intervals—not only before the summer recess—on the progress made. Obviously, we are in discussion with Sir John Chadwick about the scale of resources or support that he needs to carry out his work, and I am happy to update my hon. Friend on that, and to write to him in due course.

Andrew Tyrie: What obstacle was there to getting Sir John Chadwick's work under way immediately after the publication of the ombudsman's report and as soon as it became clear that some compensation would be necessary? That would at least have sped up this whole ghastly process by six months.

Yvette Cooper: I think that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that the ombudsman took four years to complete her work. It has taken us some months to consider the issues that she raised, and to ensure that we can set out a process that is fair to both taxpayers and policyholders, and that takes into account wider issues to do with the relationship between the Government and financial markets and the role of the regulator within financial markets. The ombudsman has raised a whole series of complex issues. We have given them detailed consideration and have come to our view. We think that the next step will be for Sir John to carry out his work, while we work alongside him on some of the practical measures.

Gordon Prentice: I, too, welcome the Government's apology, but regret that we have heard nothing similar from Conservative Members. On the fair payments scheme, is it the Government's intention to cap payments to individuals, or the totality of the scheme?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It would be helpful if the Opposition recognised the history of the events and joined us in apologising to policyholders for the events that have taken place. My hon. Friend asks whether caps should be applied. We have said that we will ask Sir John Chadwick what approach should be taken, and how payments can be set out in a way that is fair. That is one of the issues that he will need to consider.

Stephen O'Brien: After all the ducking, weaving and kicking into the long grass, the bottom line is that Equitable policyholders simply want to be restored to the position that they would have been in but for the five admitted instances of injustice and the 10 admitted instances of maladministration, not least on the reinsurance treaty, even under the current financial and prudential supervisory arrangements. Surely it must be right not to believe that a system is fair simply because the Minister says that it is fair. What can be said to any policyholder on the fairness of the system when there is uncertainty about whether they will be discriminated against in a scheme intended not to restore them to their former position, following maladministration and injustice, but to bring about social engineering?

Yvette Cooper: Again, the hon. Gentleman's party's position, as set out by the shadow Chancellor, is that
	"policyholders cannot expect to receive payments for the full losses suffered".
	I have set out in some detail why we think that it is appropriate to set out an ex gratia payment scheme that recognises that there is a wider principle, which Parliament has recognised and supported in other cases. That principle is about the regulator not becoming the guarantor of the regulated bodies, and the taxpayer not providing a guarantee for regulated bodies. We have to ensure that the way in which the financial markets operate, and the way in which the relationship between the financial markets and the Government operates, is not fundamentally distorted by our changing a long-standing approach, taken in many areas, on how compensation is dealt with when it comes to regulatory failure.
	We recognise, however, the circumstances raised by hon. Members, which is exactly why we have said that there should be ex gratia payments in cases of disproportionate impact, which will take account of the scale of people's losses and their experiences. However, it is right to do that in a way that is fair to taxpayers as well as to policyholders, and that takes account of the importance of a sustainable system in future.

Gavin Strang: Again, on the time scale, does my right hon. Friend accept that because this prolonged and fundamental regulatory failure occurred more than eight years ago—and a significant number of the people who suffered losses have died—it is vital that we proceed with extreme urgency? The ombudsman recommended that a compensation payment scheme be set up within six months, but does she accept that what matters is how quickly people receive those payments? Can she give them some encouragement that the measure will proceed at some speed?

Yvette Cooper: There are significant questions about whether it is possible to set up the kind of scheme that the ombudsman recommended within a six-month period. The Select Committee on Public Administration did not feel able to assess whether that was a sensible or plausible time scale. My right hon. Friend is right to say that we need to do this as speedily as possible, but I hope that the House also accepts that these are complex issues. The ombudsman herself has said that people with different circumstances have been affected in different ways. We need to look at the information about the policyholders and their position to take this forward.

Andrew Pelling: Like many hon. Members, I too have received a lot of correspondence from my constituents in Croydon, Central. Would it be unsafe for me to write back them telling them to expect some payments to start this calendar year?

Yvette Cooper: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific timetable for the payment, and I would not want to mislead him. We have asked for the information from Sir John Chadwick, and we must also undertake additional work on the practical issues. I would not want to give people misleading information, and I am trying to be straight with them about the fact that we simply do not know how long it will take. However, we accept the important points that people have made about the need to implement this as fast as possible, bearing in mind the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made about the need to make sure that it is fair, too.

David Drew: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend had to say, and I am interested in the proposal for an interim arrangement. Will she include in that arrangement policyholders' widows and widowers as a priority, particularly older ones, who have lost out doubly from the whole process?

Yvette Cooper: We will look at all those issues. However, we would not want to set up an interim payment scheme that ended up being so complicated that it delayed the main payment scheme. We will take all those things into account when we set out the next steps.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that many thousands of our constituents will be relieved to hear the statement but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. The right hon. Lady will have thought about the staffing needed to do this quickly and properly, and about from where those staff will be drawn, even before Lord Justice Chadwick finishes his deliberations. I hope that she will correct me if I am wrong but—call me a cynical old lawyer—"ex gratia" often means selling someone short to make them go away.

Yvette Cooper: Work is under way on the resources needed for the work over the coming months, and I am happy to keep the House informed of our progress. We are attempting to do this in a way that is fair to taxpayers, as well as to policyholders, and takes into account people's different experiences.

Barry Gardiner: My right hon. Friend's statement was a gracious one, and her apology in particular was gracious, which will mean a great deal to many of my constituents. Speed and simplicity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want a statement from the hon. Gentleman, particularly at this stage—he must ask a question.

Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is an examination of the way in which those people who are closest to their latest years in life, and who have been most severely disadvantaged by the losses that they have suffered from Equitable Life, will be part of an interim scheme to make sure that they receive some benefit before their lives come to an end?

Yvette Cooper: One of the issues that we want to look at is the age of policyholders, their circumstances and the extent to which they have been affected. As I have said, we will look at the issue of interim payments but we would not want that to delay the overall scheme. We must take all those things into account and ask the judge's advice.

Julie Kirkbride: May I press the right hon. Lady on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)? If she cannot promise that the estates of deceased policyholders will be compensated for their losses, can she at least promise that widows and widowers who, because of the losses in Equitable Life, have lived in penury since their spouses died, will be included in the scheme?

Yvette Cooper: I can certainly say that that is one of the issues on which we will ask for Sir John's advice about taking disproportionate effect into account. That means looking at what the disproportionate effect is, its impact on family members, and other issues. We will ask Sir John to look at that and advise us on it, and we will deal with it as speedily as possible.

Kelvin Hopkins: I must declare a personal interest that has no bearing on my comments.
	This is the result of a gross failure of regulation under successive Governments, so there is a case for full compensation for all those who have lost out. I know I am not in a minority in saying so, but it is the case. In future, would it not be sensible, advisable and, indeed, necessary for the Government to declare that when something is regulated, people will be compensated, or to tell them, "You're in the market—you're on your own"? The final alternative is to set up a much larger state savings system in which people are guaranteed returns and have no fear of loss.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We do not have a system of regulation in this country under which any investment in the markets is guaranteed by the regulator, who would effectively become a guarantor of the system. It would not be fair to the taxpayer to have a system in which every time a company did something dodgy and the regulator failed to prevent them from doing so, the taxpayer had to step in and make good the losses. We recognise the importance of the issue of financial stability when the Government have to act, as well as the fact that, as in this case, there are examples of disproportionate impact as well as maladministration. It is therefore appropriate to act in this case, but it would lead to a fundamentally different relationship between Government and the financial markets and, perhaps more importantly, between the taxpayer and financial markets, if we moved to a system of automatic full compensation whenever there was any kind of problem in the financial markets, including regulatory problems. That is why we have taken a different approach.

Sandra Gidley: Many people will welcome the compensation, but there is still uncertainty, because they will benefit only because of the disproportionate impact and the position of the public finances. What assessment has the Minister made of the proportion of policyholders who are likely to receive compensation?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have simply been unable to make that assessment, because we do not know policyholders' circumstances at the moment. We have anecdotal evidence from individual members, but we do not have detailed information, which is why we have asked Equitable to provide us with it. We will work with the judge to answer the legitimate question that the hon. Lady has put to us.

Mark Lazarowicz: I can understand why my right hon. Friend is concerned that an interim payments scheme might add further complexity. No one would want that, but surely it cannot be beyond the wit of all the experts involved to come up with some simple interim payments scheme, because people are going to need some form of payment in a reasonably short time. I am sure that the welcome that policyholders will give today's announcement will be qualified by the talk of the months and years that payments might take. Some people need money much more quickly than that, and I strongly urge my right hon. Friend to consider some form of interim payment scheme as part of the package that she is now discussing.

Yvette Cooper: I should like to make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that we are prepared to consider an interim payment scheme. We will need to take a range of issues into account, but we are keen to look at all sorts of options. We will do whatever we can to speed up the process, especially for people who need payments to be made as swiftly as possible.

George Young: But have not the exchanges over the past hour shown that there is widespread anxiety on both sides of the House about the Chief Secretary's proposals? Does that not underline the need for an early and calm debate in Government time on what she has put forward? In the meantime, can she at least say that it is her intention that the first compensation payments will be made in the year 2009?

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a debate, and I shall pass his request on to the business managers. However, the principle that the regulator should not act as guarantor has been recognised in debates in this House, and it was set out and reinforced in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That legislation continued the financial regulator's long-standing exemption from claims for negligence in the courts. Successive Governments have supported that approach in order to be fair to the taxpayer and to recognise the relationship between Governments and financial markets. I should be very surprised if the Opposition really wanted to end that principle at this stage.
	Several hon. Members have asked what the Government think that the timetable will be, but I have to be honest and say that we will ask the judge for advice on the matter. We will complete the process as speedily as possible.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on. I apologise and am sympathetic to the hon. Members whom I have not been able to call, but I am sure that this subject will be another to which the House will return properly in the form of a debate raised by one means or another.

Point of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to return to the subject of the noise from Parliament square's amplified protests, but you will remember Mr. Speaker's statement on the matter on 28 October. He said then that he hoped to be consulted by the Government about hon. Members' concerns about access and especially about abuse from amplified noise in Parliament square.
	If, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were in New Palace yard yesterday evening you could not have failed to notice that the protesters in Parliament square appear to have been given new equipment. It made the noise deafening for people well inside the parliamentary premises, so one can well imagine what it must have been like for the police and security officers near the gates who have to protect the premises.
	Westminster council has admitted that its permission to make broadcasts from the square ran out almost a year ago yet, in anticipation of a statement from the Government, it has done nothing about it. Ministers told me in November that such a statement would be made imminently, but do you know whether Mr. Speaker has been consulted or given any indication of when this absurd and abusive state of affairs will be brought to an end?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am indeed sorry that the hon. Member has had need to raise the matter again. I suppose that the short answer to him is that Mr. Speaker is still hoping to get a response from Westminster city council. I can assure him that Mr. Speaker will not let the matter go.

Gaza

Bill Rammell: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of Gaza.
	The situation in Gaza and southern Israel is a grave crisis of enormous concern to every Member of this House. The Government know that hon. Members wanted an opportunity to debate the situation and to question the Government. I am pleased that we have been able to make Government time available during the first week back to enable that to happen. Accordingly, I shall be as brief as I can to allow as many hon. Members as possible to contribute. I ask hon. Members to take account of that need when it comes to making interventions.
	The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have all come to the House this week to reiterate the Government's determination to achieve an immediate and sustainable ceasefire in Gaza. We have been working intensively since the crisis began to end the violence but, as everyone in the House is all too well aware, the situation is not improving. The Palestinian death toll has passed 1,000—including a chilling 300 children—and dozens more rocket attacks have been fired into Israel in recent days.
	The conflict has had a devastating impact on innocent civilians, women and children among them. Gazans have no way of escaping the violence. They are trapped as services collapse still further, as food and medicines dwindle and violence surrounds them. But this did not begin on 27 December. For many months, rockets fired from Gaza have terrorised the citizens of southern Israel, and Gazans have lived under suffocating restrictions that have deprived them of even the basics.
	The Gaza ceasefire between June and December 2008 provided only a very limited lull. Over 300 rockets and mortars were fired into Israel. Over 15 Palestinians were killed as a result of Israeli action, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza continued its decline. Few were surprised when that unhappy lull finally cracked, first in November and finally with Hamas declaring it "dead" on 18 December, after which it fired almost 300 rockets in eight days.
	Hamas made a brutal choice to step up attacks against innocent civilians. Its whole ethos is one of violence. It has rejected the legitimate Palestinian Authority and ejected that authority by force from Gaza. Nothing, not the restrictions on Gaza nor its frustration with the peace process, justifies what Hamas has done and continues to do. In December, I was in Ashkelon near the Gaza border and I heard the sirens. The fear was palpable: this is daily psychological and actual warfare.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his speech. I understand and appreciate the fear felt by Israelis, but reports that appear to be substantiated suggest that white phosphorus is being used in the very cramped areas of Gaza. I have used white phosphorus: it is legitimate only as a smokescreen, although it is an incendiary. If it hits a person's skin, it will burn until it is wasted out. That appears to be happening and it is, I fear, totally unacceptable. Will he confirm whether he knows that white phosphorus is being used in civilian areas?

Bill Rammell: I share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I shall deal with that point explicitly later in my speech.

Chris Mullin: My hon. Friend mentioned Hamas a moment ago, but is he aware that the former Foreign Office diplomat, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, takes a quite different view? He has very detailed knowledge of the area, and his characterisation of Hamas is very different from what the Minister has put to us today.

Bill Rammell: I know former ambassador Jeremy Greenstock very well, as does my hon. Friend. I believe that Hamas has a consistent track record of using terror and violence. We should oppose that, but I shall try to give a more balanced picture as I develop my remarks, and to take some other interventions.
	It is also true that the Israeli operation has wrought a terrible toll in Gaza. With the conflict continuing and journalists barred from entering, the picture that we have is partial, but the reported death toll has risen past 1,000 dead, including over 300 children. In Gaza, 80 per cent. of the drinking water is not safe for human consumption. Gaza's already crumbling infrastructure has been degraded still further. Those trying to help must run the gauntlet of fighting, or work only during the inadequate three-hour window. Too many are paying with their own lives—13 medical personnel have been killed since 27 December, and attacks on medical personnel and ambulances have hampered organisations' ability to assist the injured.

Karen Buck: I, too, have been in both Sderot and Gaza and I accept that there are two sides to the story, but they are not equal—100 Palestinian children have died for every Israeli citizen. Will my hon. Friend comment on the legality of the collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, which is what we are witnessing?

Bill Rammell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, the House will have noticed that Mr. Speaker has put a time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but under the ruling one minute is added for every intervention. If there are too many interventions, much as the Minister is amenable to taking them, I am afraid that other Members who want to make a contribution later in the debate may be prejudiced by that.

Bill Rammell: That point is well made, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), I should say that I understand the concerns about disproportionality. We have made clear our view that the Israeli reaction is disproportionate. I will come on to address the other points as I make progress.

David Drew: Before my hon. Friend moves on—

Bill Rammell: No. I shall make progress, if I may. The point about the number of hon. Members wishing to speak is clear.
	We recognise Israel's right to self-defence but, as I said, the EU presidency stated on 27 December that the Israelis' use of force is disproportionate. We supported that statement and we continue to support it.
	There has also been a real concern about the use of white phosphorous by Israel. The use of white phosphorous is not banned under international law, but we have made it abundantly clear to the Israelis that it should not be used as an anti-personnel weapon, and most certainly not in a civilian environment. Its use in built-up areas such as Gaza is, bluntly, unacceptable.
	The shelling this morning in Gaza of the UN compound is indefensible and unacceptable, and Israel has acknowledged that fact.

Derek Wyatt: Exactly. Is it my hon. Friend's intention to report the Israeli Government to the International Crisis Group or to the war crimes tribunal?

Bill Rammell: If I may make some progress, I shall address that specific point later in my remarks.

Tom Levitt: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Bill Rammell: Very briefly.

Tom Levitt: Anyone who has visited Gaza knows exactly how dependent ordinary people are on the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Is not the bombing of the UNRWA compound the height of cynicism in what is already a very cynical military attack?

Bill Rammell: I have made it very clear, and it is the collective view of the Government, that that bombing is indefensible and unacceptable.
	As the Foreign Secretary said earlier this week,
	"Hamas has shown itself over a number of years ready to be murderous in word and deed. Its motif is 'resistance' and its method includes terrorism. Israel is, meanwhile, a thriving, democratic state with an independent judiciary. However, one consequence of the distinction between a democratic Government and a terrorist organisation is that democratic Governments are held to significantly higher standards, notably by their own people."—[ Official Report, 12 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 23.]

Lyn Brown: Will my hon. Friend consider economic sanctions? They are an effective tool of non-violent intervention. Surely with the right to trade comes the responsibility to uphold basic humanitarian principles.

Bill Rammell: I respect the passion and conviction of my hon. Friend. She has spoken to me privately about her concerns. I genuinely do not believe that economic sanctions will help us. There is nothing like consensus for them within the European Union, and our overriding focus at present is to get that urgent, immediate and sustainable ceasefire. I do not believe that sanctions would help us to do that.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

Bill Rammell: I will make some progress and take some more interventions.
	One of my real fears is that current actions risk fuelling extremism in the region and undermining those who argue for negotiation and peace.

Lee Scott: Does the Minister join me in hoping that the peace negotiations currently going on in Egypt, which I am sure everyone in the House prays will bring peace to the region, must include firm commitments that Egypt will police its border to make sure that much-needed humanitarian aid gets in, but that no weapons get in with it.

Bill Rammell: I will take care with what I say on that. The talks that are taking place are critical. We are doing our level best to push those talks forward and I hope that they can reach a conclusion very shortly.
	There needs to be a balance in this debate. We should be absolutely clear that Hamas is not a benign organisation. It commits acts of terrorism, it is committed to the obliteration of the state of Israel and its statement last week that it was legitimate to kill Jewish children anywhere in the world was utterly chilling and beyond any kind of civilised, humanitarian norm.
	All this has to stop. A ceasefire is an absolute imperative if innocent civilians are to be spared. We have long called for an end to the rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and for greater access to Gaza. And since the Israeli operation began, we have consistently called for an immediate and sustainable halt to the violence, and we have been at the forefront of those arguing for this to stop.

Jim Cunningham: How near are we to a permanent ceasefire as a result of the current discussions in Egypt? What Israel is doing in Gaza at the moment is totally unacceptable.

Bill Rammell: It is unacceptable on all sides. In the midst of this, and given the incredibly detailed and sensitive negotiations that are going on, it would be foolhardy of me to pluck a prediction out of the air. What I can promise my hon. Friend is that the Government, through the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, me and others, are doing everything they can to bring forward the ceasefire.

Angus MacNeil: Sadly, Israel's behaviour at the moment makes it look like a rogue state to those of us who have not been involved with the situation. I am hearing the Government's words of condemnation, but what will they do to make Israel understand that its behaviour is beyond the pale for a democracy?

Bill Rammell: We have communicated that directly to the Israeli Government both privately and publicly in respect of the use of white phosphorous. On the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should say, as I have said a number of times, that I will come on to address them directly.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bill Rammell: I shall make some progress, then take a further intervention.
	On 27 December, with our support, the UN Security Council called for an immediate halt to the fighting. Since then, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have been working intensively with their international counterparts to deliver such a ceasefire. In a meeting with EU Ministers on 30 December and at the UN Security Council on 8 January, the Foreign Secretary secured international consensus around that call. I am proud that our Government led the way in securing last week's Security Council statement urging a ceasefire. The British-drafted Security Council resolution 1860 shows real agreement on a clear set of objectives: first, an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire; secondly, meeting the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people in Gaza; and, thirdly, meeting Israelis' security needs, which must be tackled through new measures on illegal arms trafficking.

Fiona Mactaggart: When that resolution was being negotiated, I was meeting some 30 constituents in Slough. The carnage wreaked by Israel in Gaza has created a sense of alienation among them, because they believe that our Government are not delivering peace and security for the people of Palestine. They believe that we ought to be able to do that and feel let down by the Government, because there has been so little effect.

Bill Rammell: I say in all sincerity to my hon. Friend that I understand that concern. In the past two weeks, I have talked with numerous groups in detail about the issues. I cannot give a guarantee; the British Government do not have the capacity to mandate a ceasefire. We are doing our level best in the circumstances. We were at the forefront of those calling immediately for a ceasefire. We led the way at the United Nations to secure resolution 1860. Whatever people feel and whatever criticisms they may have made in the past—about what happened in Lebanon in 2006, for example—that is not where we are today, and that is not what the British Government are doing.

Sarah Teather: Will the Government take a lead on a further UN resolution? The Minister has called the attacks with white phosphorous unacceptable, but he will be aware that Israel has not ratified the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. The only way for the court to have jurisdiction to investigate the matter is if the UN refers it via another resolution. Will the Government take a lead on that issue and ask the UN to do that?

Bill Rammell: We have consistently argued that all states should accede to the International Criminal Court, and we will continue to make that call.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bill Rammell: I shall make some progress and then take a couple more interventions, but I am very conscious of the time scale this afternoon.
	The final objective is that we must re-energise the peace process. The crisis is an indictment of the international community's collective failure—over years and decades, not just months—to bring about the two-state solution and create a positive vision for the future. The Foreign Secretary has set out our vision for a more comprehensive approach bringing peace between Israel and the whole Arab world. The crisis has deepened popular scepticism about such a peace and further entrenched the division in Palestinian politics, with real economic progress on the Palestinian Authority-controlled west bank while Gazans suffer ever more. We do not underestimate the challenge, but we must ensure that we work to resolve the real issues at stake, or we will simply stumble on to the next crisis.

Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend accept that Israel is correct in trying to stop its citizens being the target of Iranian rockets—that it is right to take that action? Will he also accept that the Israeli action will stop when the rockets stop?

Bill Rammell: Let me say to my hon. Friend that I understand that concern. Israel does have a right to self-defence. I was in Ashkelon, and I have experienced the psychological and military aspects of the terror on Israel—but the Israeli action has been disproportionate. On both sides, we need to get to that ceasefire as quickly as we possibly can.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bill Rammell: With respect, I want to proceed with my speech, and then I will take one more intervention.
	It is now a week since the Security Council passed resolution 1860, but the violence goes on. Every day that it does, more people suffer. Egypt, which brokered the previous lull, is now leading efforts to broker a more sustainable ceasefire. The issues are complex. We all wish that these talks would move faster, and we are doing everything we can to bring that about. The European Union is ready to send its border mission back to the Rafah crossing or to expand its mandate. We are pressing hard for action and ready to assist in making a ceasefire sustainable.
	Very serious allegations have been made against both sides. We take those allegations very seriously indeed, and they have to be fully investigated. The reality is that the allegations cannot be properly investigated while the violence continues. The Israeli authorities have said that they are already investigating specific incidents raised by the aid agencies. The United Nations human rights bodies also have a mandate to report on any such violations. As soon as there is a ceasefire and proper access to Gaza, thorough investigations must—I repeat, must—begin in earnest. We will consider very carefully the results of investigations once they are available, and at that stage the parties and the international community will need to decide on further action.

Simon Hughes: All of us who have been to Israel and Palestine know the yearning and the need for peace, but many of us have been here and heard talk of Quartets, route maps, Annapolis and all these things, and they have not delivered. Can the Minister take the message that once we have a new President of the United States there will need to be more serious commitment by our Government and by other Governments, with the new Government of Israel after the elections, to make sure that there is progress—not just talk of a future that is peaceful but actual pressure so that there can be no option but a peace settlement in the foreseeable future?

Bill Rammell: I share the view that part of the reason we are where we are today is a collective failure on the part of the international community, not just over months, but over years and decades. With a new Government in Israel, with a new President in the United States, and with our commitment as a Government, we have to re-inject urgency into this middle east peace process.
	In recent debates in this House, some have suggested that by sanctions or embargoes we could accelerate the process. I do not believe that that is the case. We have made it clear that we agree with the EU presidency that the Israeli action is disproportionate, and we have been clear in our calls for a ceasefire, but there are real issues at stake that need to be tackled. They undermined the ceasefire last year, and they will undermine a future deal if they are not tackled. The answer to this crisis lies in bringing people with us. Sanctions and embargoes on Israel will not make Israeli citizens safer, nor will they re-establish normal life in Gaza. We already have a very vigorous and rigorous arms export regime, and we already speak very frankly to those at the heart of the conflict. The genuine way forward is to work with those committed to peaceful progress towards a two-state solution, and with them immediately to find practical ways to end the violence, stop arms smuggling and open the crossing—and, in the longer term, to work with them to strengthen the political process and create real hope that justice for Palestinians and security for Israelis is possible. That is what is so desperately needed.

David Lidington: Anyone who has followed the crisis in Gaza over the past few weeks will have been confronted by a spectacle of horror and of the most appalling human suffering. Even before the outbreak of this war, the people of Gaza had to bear the impact of economic isolation over many months. Food, fuel, clean water and medical supplies were already subject to severe shortages and frequent interruptions. Now those people, including many who want no part in violence, and did not vote for Hamas, are caught in the crossfire and fear for the lives and safety of themselves and their families.
	As the Minister said, anyone crossing the border and going to Sderot, where I was some months ago, will experience the anger and terror of Israeli civilians and understand why there is overwhelming pressure on the Israeli Government, from their own citizens, in support of the current military action. Anyone wanting to bring about an immediate end to the fighting must take on board the fact that opinion surveys are showing that more than 90 per cent. of the Israeli public remain in support of the action that their Government are taking.

Paul Rowen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but although I am normally willing to take many interventions, like the Minister, I shall be parsimonious because to do otherwise would be unfair to other Members who wish to speak.

Paul Rowen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall be quick. Does he not agree that notwithstanding his comments, the Israeli Government's response has been totally disproportionate?

David Lidington: The key point to make is that we need an immediate end to both Israeli military action and rocket attacks on Israel. I would make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition condemn the disproportionate use of force, and particularly the targeting of civilians. We regard the attack today on the United Nations headquarters in Gaza as wholly unacceptable, and it is welcome that the Israeli authorities have swiftly recognised the folly of that step. I hope that it will not be long before a ceasefire can be reached.

Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend also condemn Hamas's disgraceful habit and tactic of planting its rockets in civilian areas, storing them in hospitals and blocks of flats and putting civilians at risk? Secondary and tertiary explosions occur, causing collateral damage.

David Lidington: The actions of Hamas in the current conflict and in the past have demonstrated that it is an organisation that is prepared to use violence in the most ruthless fashion against not only Israelis, whether military or civilian, but the Palestinian people themselves. We have to understand the sort of organisation that it is and the events that took place when it staged its coup d'état in the Gaza strip a couple of years ago.
	The trouble is that the longer the violence continues, the greater the anger and the deeper the bitterness on both sides of the conflict and throughout the region. It is in the strategic interests of both Israel and those Palestinians who genuinely want their own sovereign state, rather than to engage in a never-ending campaign of violence, to see the war brought to an end as swiftly as possible. The truth is that more Israelis today are now asking whether the experience of Gaza shows that the very idea of swapping land for peace is fool's gold, and more Palestinians are questioning whether Israel will ever permit a truly independent Palestinian state to come into existence.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, because at some time in future, there must be a settlement on the west bank, and Palestinians' legitimate aspirations must be addressed. However, the Israeli evacuation from Gaza and the removal of settlements was followed by Hamas causing or permitting an ever-increasing number of rockets to be fired over a wider and wider area of Israel. That does nothing to advance the cause.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend explains the reason for the genuine resentment and anger—even among Israeli parties and citizens who have been committed to a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians for many years—about what happened after the disengagement from Gaza. However, it is essential not only to get a settlement in the west bank, as he said, but to ensure that the Palestinian state includes Gaza.
	There will be enormous risks for Israel if the violence persists. The longer the fighting continues, the more Hamas can claim victory simply by surviving. The temptation for Israel to press on until, as some say, Hamas is deposed, carries even greater risk. If Hamas is removed from power, who will govern Gaza in its place? How will that happen? The prospect of Somalia in Gaza is even worse than the position in recent months.
	Israel needs to be aware of the risk of violence spreading to her other borders. The position on the Israeli border with Lebanon is already fragile, and there have even been incidents across the Israeli-Jordanian border in the past week. There is also a risk for Israel that continuing violence in Gaza will undermine the entire middle east peace process, on which hopes for Israel's long-term security must rest.

Martin Linton: Would not it have helped if the evacuation of 8,000 settlers from Gaza had not been followed by an increase of 12,000 settlers in the west bank, many of them the same settlers who were moved from Gaza? Is not that the reason for the Palestinians remaining suspicious of the peace process?

David Lidington: I have said in other debates in this place, and I am happy to repeat it, that I believe that the Israeli Government should have made concessions on the illegal settlements much earlier and that their failure to do that, even after the Annapolis conference, is one reason for even the most moderate Palestinian leaders, such as President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, feeling that their position has been undermined. However, instead of arguing about the events of the past and trying to attribute blame, we should argue today for the immediate cessation of violence and then for energetic diplomatic and political activity towards the comprehensive peace that the region needs.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend talks about looking to the future, and we are certainly going through a bleak period of middle east history. However, should not we also try to ensure that the Qassam and Katyusha missiles that are manufactured in Iran and end up in the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas are prevented from coming into Gaza and Israel?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend is right. It is not possible to separate the different parts of the middle east dispute from one another. Any permanent settlement to the Israel-Palestine question must somehow involve addressing the role that Iran plays in regional politics.

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Is it not worrying that the possibility that is emerging in Cairo of some serious discussion between Hamas and the other partners has been created by Israeli violent attack, and that that is a mark of the international community's failure to get Hamas talking, unwelcome and difficult though that process is, until now? It should not be only violence that can achieve that.

David Lidington: The right hon. Gentleman is right that it should not only be violence that achieves that, but many countries and individual envoys have been able to talk to Hamas in recent years. The essential problem has been the refusal of Hamas to accept those Quartet conditions and to recognise that the way forward is through the renunciation of violence and a wholehearted commitment to achieving Palestinian national aspirations through politics and negotiation, rather than through the bomb and the bullet.

Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington: The hon. Lady must forgive me.
	We need an immediate cessation of violence, the implementation of that ceasefire by both sides and immediate access to Gaza to be given to the emergency relief that is now desperately needed. There must follow, as quickly as possible after that cessation of violence, the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, monitoring arrangements to ensure that rocket attacks cannot be resumed and agreement on measures to allow the reopening of border crossings, so that reconstruction work and normal economic life can start to be renewed. That agreement on the crossings will once again have to include measures to stop the use of tunnels to smuggle arms and explosives into Gaza.

Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Lidington: No, I am not going to give way.
	The Minister in his comments today and the Foreign Secretary earlier this week talked about the welcome commitment on aid that the Government are giving to the people of Gaza. I would be grateful if the Minister replying to this debate could say something about the Government's estimate of whether the attack on the UN headquarters today is likely to cause serious disruption to the distribution of essential United Nations aid. I would also be grateful if they can say what help the Government are now providing, either bilaterally or through multilateral institutions, to offer immediate relief to suffering civilians and how far the Government's plans have now advanced to contribute to the large-scale relief work and longer-term reconstruction work that will be essential if, once a ceasefire is achieved, we can start to recreate anything resembling a normal life and hopes for a better future for the people of the Gaza strip.
	But we need not just to provide practical, material relief. The history of Gaza shows us that a truce is inherently unstable. The weaknesses in the old ceasefire arrangements, which collapsed three weeks ago, were analysed well by the International Crisis Group. The ICG pointed out that the ceasefire was unwritten, that it was negotiated via a third party and that the interpretations of its terms, by Hamas on the one hand and Israel on the other, differed substantially. Hamas believed that it had achieved a six-month period providing phased access to and for Gaza, whereas Israel viewed the agreement on a ceasefire as open-ended, with a modulated opening of the crossings, depending on the degree of calm in the south and progress towards the release of Gilad Shalit. The incompatibility of those differing interpretations of a ceasefire agreement that was never written down is an important part of the explanation of why it collapsed when it did.
	It is dangerous to think that if we can get a new ceasefire in place, the international community can then sit back and take its time before making moves to rekindle the broader peace process. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) and others have said, what we have seen in recent years and even decades is a failure of political energy and political will by the entire international community.
	Efforts to seek a comprehensive peace settlement should be a priority for the new United States Administration and for the European Union. I do not pretend for a moment that that will be an easy and straightforward task. I spent most of last week in Syria and Lebanon, and I saw how the Arab media are using images of death and mutilation in Gaza that are far more vivid than anything published or broadcast here. I got a sense of the rage being felt by Governments and ordinary citizens in those countries, and we have to remember that in virtually every Arab country 60 per cent. of the population is under 30. Moderate Arab leaders are fearful of the impact of Gaza on opinion in their countries, and even states such as Turkey and Malaysia have denounced Israel's action in the most strident language.
	Yet the signs are not altogether those of pessimism. The Syrian leaders to whom I spoke told me that they certainly could not talk to Israel now, but that they would be willing to return to talks about Golan in the future, after a ceasefire in Gaza had been re-established. We all know the political objective: an Israel living safely behind internationally recognised borders and alongside a Palestinian state that is sovereign, and economically and politically viable. That has to be coupled with Israel's right to live in peace and security, recognised by all of her neighbours. In essence, we need to ally the Oslo-Annapolis process to the regional settlement proposed in the Arab peace initiative, which involves tackling some difficult issues that are worthy of another day's debate in themselves. The process has to address the issue of Hamas and the rejectionist Palestinians. We have heard frequent statements from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others calling for an end to the state of Israel, saying that there can never be any compromise and using language that, at times, moves from being anti-Israeli to being forthrightly anti-Semitic. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that those organisations enjoy a measure of genuine electoral support in the Palestinian territories. Are those organisations prepared to commit themselves genuinely to a political process whose objective would be a two-state solution and the recognition of Israel?
	The role of Iran was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). Iran, with her population, natural resources and the entrepreneurial traditions of her people, could be a key economic and political force for good in the region, but at the moment Iranian policy far too often exercises a malign influence on the search for peace and stability. Iran has got to choose what type of influence she wishes to exert. Does she want a durable peace in the region and the recognition of her role as a significant player in regional affairs, or does she seek the path of confrontation? I have believed for a long time that the policy of seeking to isolate Iran—refusing to engage with her—was a mistake. I welcome the fact that the new US Administration are committed to a policy of engagement, and I hope that they will test to the full the readiness of the regime in Iran to work for peace, rather than for instability and confrontation.
	To conclude, the interests of the United Kingdom lie not only in a ceasefire, and not only—vital though it is—in bringing an end to the suffering of 1.5 million people, but in an enduring peace that will at last give to all the countries of the middle east the assurance of security and the chance for their people to prosper.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

Gerald Kaufman: I was brought up as an orthodox Jew and a Zionist. On a shelf in our kitchen, there was a tin box for the Jewish National Fund, into which we put coins to help the pioneers building a Jewish presence in Palestine.
	I first went to Israel in 1961 and I have been there since more times than I can count. I had family in Israel and have friends in Israel. One of them fought in the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 and was wounded in two of them. The tie clip that I am wearing is made from a campaign decoration awarded to him, which he presented to me.
	I have known most of the Prime Ministers of Israel, starting with the founding Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Golda Meir was my friend, as was Yigal Allon, Deputy Prime Minister, who, as a general, won the Negev for Israel in the 1948 war of independence.
	My parents came to Britain as refugees from Poland. Most of their families were subsequently murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust. My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town of Staszow. A German soldier shot her dead in her bed.
	My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The current Israeli Government ruthlessly and cynically exploit the continuing guilt among gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians. The implication is that Jewish lives are precious, but the lives of Palestinians do not count.
	On Sky News a few days ago, the spokeswoman for the Israeli army, Major Leibovich, was asked about the Israeli killing of, at that time, 800 Palestinians—the total is now 1,000. She replied instantly that
	"500 of them were militants."
	That was the reply of a Nazi. I suppose that the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.
	The Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asserts that her Government will have no dealings with Hamas, because they are terrorists. Tzipi Livni's father was Eitan Livni, chief operations officer of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi, who organised the blowing-up of the King David hotel in Jerusalem, in which 91 victims were killed, including four Jews.
	Israel was born out of Jewish terrorism. Jewish terrorists hanged two British sergeants and booby-trapped their corpses. Irgun, together with the terrorist Stern gang, massacred 254 Palestinians in 1948 in the village of Deir Yassin. Today, the current Israeli Government indicate that they would be willing, in circumstances acceptable to them, to negotiate with the Palestinian President Abbas of Fatah. It is too late for that. They could have negotiated with Fatah's previous leader, Yasser Arafat, who was a friend of mine. Instead, they besieged him in a bunker in Ramallah, where I visited him. Because of the failings of Fatah since Arafat's death, Hamas won the Palestinian election in 2006. Hamas is a deeply nasty organisation, but it was democratically elected, and it is the only game in town. The boycotting of Hamas, including by our Government, has been a culpable error, from which dreadful consequences have followed.
	The great Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban, with whom I campaigned for peace on many platforms, said:
	"You make peace by talking to your enemies."
	However many Palestinians the Israelis murder in Gaza, they cannot solve this existential problem by military means. Whenever and however the fighting ends, there will still be 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza and 2.5 million more on the west bank. They are treated like dirt by the Israelis, with hundreds of road blocks and with the ghastly denizens of the illegal Jewish settlements harassing them as well. The time will come, not so long from now, when they will outnumber the Jewish population in Israel.
	It is time for our Government to make clear to the Israeli Government that their conduct and policies are unacceptable, and to impose a total arms ban on Israel. It is time for peace, but real peace, not the solution by conquest which is the Israelis' real goal but which it is impossible for them to achieve. They are not simply war criminals; they are fools.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) has made a powerful speech containing a great deal of knowledge and feeling. While I may not choose all the words that he chose, I entirely share many of his sentiments, and particularly agree with his point about the arms embargo. All the Liberal Democrats agree with him on that point of substance.
	I also agree, however, with much of what the Minister said. I thought that he had the balance right in some of his criticisms of Hamas, which were very valid and must be made—were, indeed, made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. He was right not to shirk from using the word "disproportionate" to describe the Israeli action. But I urge the Government, in their discussions with the Israeli Government, to make clear that we in the House of Commons consider the Israeli action to be a disaster for Israel. It may achieve some tactical victories in destroying Hamas infrastructure, it may succeed in killing Hamas fighters and it may even reduce the frequency of some of the rocket attacks, but I believe that this is already a strategic defeat for Israel. I believe that we are seeing Hamas strengthened, not just in Gaza but on the west bank and elsewhere. I think we are seeing serious international damage done to the reputation of Israel. I really am very sorry about that, and hope that Israel will begin to realise that it is happening.
	When I visited Israel and the west bank last November and talked to people at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to Dr. Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority, there was a feeling that Hamas was beginning to lose the PR war and the support of many Palestinians, and was becoming isolated internationally. It was not being seen as delivering, and even on the streets it was being opposed by increasing numbers of Palestinians. The effect of the Israeli action has been to reverse that in just a few days.
	The Israelis ought to know better. Hamas is an organisation that enjoys martyrdom, and seeks it for many of its activists. Unfortunately it is strengthened by that, despite all the efforts of the Israelis to put their side of the argument—and there is a side. We all know of the horrendous nature of the rocket attacks on Ashkelon and Sderot, for instance. We know about the civilian casualties—about the 311 children killed, the 76 women killed, the 1,459 children wounded. Numbers like that are unacceptable, and we should say loud and clear to the Israelis that this does their case no good whatsoever.
	There is suffering on a scale that I do not think we have seen in recent times. There is a humanitarian catastrophe, with a lack of food, clean water, electricity and medicine. Blockades are preventing people who are wounded from seeking treatment. There is trauma for children and families. This is something that we cannot sit back and allow, and our voice should be loud against it.

Richard Younger-Ross: My hon. Friend has made the point that the Israelis are not learning lessons, and that their actions strengthen not just their enemies but their enemies who are extremists. The invasion of Lebanon led to a strengthening of Hezbollah, and not just in Lebanon: Hezbollah posters were seen in Ramallah for the first time. Is that not a lesson that the Israelis need to learn?

Edward Davey: I fear that my hon. Friend is right. According to the assessments that I have seen of what has happened to Hezbollah's strength in Lebanon, it has already been politically strengthened and is now being militarily strengthened. It is rebuilding its arsenals, which is completely contrary to the intentions of the Israeli attack. I am not sure if there are direct parallels with the attack on Hamas in Gaza, but I think that, certainly in terms of the politics of the situation, the Israeli invasion is very counter-productive.

Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible argument about how terrorist organisations—and in the case of Gaza, a terrorist regime—deliberately try to provoke overreaction from their enemies, but I think he should pay more attention to the following aspect of the Israelis' point of view. I doubt if they ever thought they were going to win a propaganda war in the current situation, but let us consider it in relation to the invasion of Lebanon. That met with a similar degree of opposition worldwide, but is it not the case that there was an element of delayed deterrence in that the rocket attacks from that part of Israel's neighbourhood have almost died away completely? Should we not recognise that if the primary purpose of the current Israeli action is to stop the rockets, they may be making the calculation that it is worth losing a propaganda war in order to achieve that?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman studies these issues in great detail and has a great deal of knowledge and understanding of them, but I fear that the reduction in the number of rocket strikes from southern Lebanon—indeed, there has been a period of calm there—is not necessarily because Hezbollah cannot fire the rockets, but because it is choosing not to do so and is biding its time. Therefore, I do not think the case the hon. Gentleman makes is necessarily backed up by the fact that rockets have not been fired.
	I do not think Israel has a real solution to the endgame in Gaza. What is the objective? We hear three different options from Israeli commentators and politicians. The first—and perhaps the most realistic—option is that they want to teach Hamas a lesson, get some good ceasefire terms and get the rockets stopped. To a certain extent, that would seem to be a reasonable objective, but the problem is that Hamas would claim a victory in those circumstances; it would be strengthened, and it would, therefore, get more legitimacy as a result of this escapade than it ever had before. This action is very counter-productive, and there is a danger that even if Israel gets that outcome, with some messy ceasefire terms, the legitimacy and strength of the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas will be seriously undermined, and the Israelis may find that they end up having to talk to Hamas, which is something they have refused to do for many years.
	Some Israeli politicians put forward a second objective: that they want to destroy Hamas, to replace it in Gaza with Fatah, and to have the peace talks only with Fatah. While people might think that is a desirable objective in many respects, it is so unlikely as to be ridiculous. The idea that a movement such as Hamas can be defeated in a military sense is nonsense. Hamas does not just exist in Gaza; it exists in people's minds—it exists in the west bank. Therefore, that is a ludicrous objective—although we do hear it being put forward.
	I also think Fatah is too weak to take control in Gaza if Hamas were defeated. That is partly because of some of Hamas's appalling activities in executing Fatah activists, but it is also because Fatah lost the political support of many people in Gaza. I fear that if the Israelis defeat Hamas, rather than it being replaced by Fatah, there would be something far worse: there would be the danger of some al-Qaeda-type offshoot taking its place. That would set back the cause of peace many years.
	A third, and possibly even more ludicrous, option is being touted around by some commentators: that Israel could force Egypt to take responsibility for Gaza. That is madness, but it is being advocated. President Mubarak simply would not agree to that. One problem is that this action is undermining him; it is playing into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. What does Israel want? Does it want a radical Islamic Government in Cairo? How damaging would that be to Israel's security? But if it continues along this path, that is what will happen. It has simply not thought this attack through.

Andrew Pelling: In terms of dealing with the unintended consequences, is there not also a danger of spreading the loss of political security, even for us in this country? Are we being asked to underwrite the risks that our constituents now face as a result of this irresponsible behaviour by Israel in Gaza?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall come on to that later. I just want to deal with one other explanation for this particular conflict that one hears from some Israelis. Some people argue that because Iran is getting closer to obtaining nuclear weapons and because, in its appalling way, it funds and supports Hamas, nuclear weapons would get into Gaza and Iran would use it as a launching pad. I have heard that argument advocated by, among others, Binyamin Netanyahu. There is no doubt that Iran is a serious threat—I understand how and why such people see Iran as an existential threat—but linking Iranian nuclear weapons and this attack on Gaza is a theory that is not backed up by any evidence or, crucially, by any logic.
	First, it is not clear that Iran would need Hamas to launch a nuclear attack if it were minded to do so; unfortunately, Iran has far too many other options. Secondly, exploding a nuclear device anywhere in Israel would not be a particularly clever act for people who care about Palestinians to carry out. This is a small territory, so it is beyond me why Hamas, which is fighting for Palestinians, would want to kill Palestinians and see the fallout spilling out all over Gaza and the west bank. We have to say to the Israelis, who are making this bizarre argument, that it does not justify their actions, because it does not stand up to any analysis.

Clare Short: A number of hon. Members have said that Iran is funding and arming Hamas. Could anyone explain how Iran gets the primitive explosives into Egypt, up to Rafah and through the tunnels in order to make these primitive rockets? How do such weapons possibly come from Iran? This is just a scare story, for which there is absolutely no evidence.

Edward Davey: I do not agree with the right hon. Lady. Some of the rockets being used by Hamas, such as the Katyusha and Qassam rockets, are primitive and appear to be made within Gaza. However, some of the Grad rockets and others that have been used genuinely appear to have come from Iran.

Alan Beith: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the dangers to Israel in the current strategy, but I think that he is looking too hard for explanations. Most ordinary Israelis want somebody to do something to stop the rockets, and they have been told by their leaders that not only is this action more likely to reduce the amount of rockets, but Hamas is much more likely to seek some kind of peace settlement if the military action continues. Unless the international community offers Israel a better option, many Israelis will continue to believe that.

Edward Davey: I certainly agree that the international community needs to offer a better peace settlement, but the Israeli people are being told these things by Israeli politicians—I am not making them up—who are seeking election next month, and they are confusing the argument. We need to enter that democratic debate to tell the Israelis, "These are not excuses. They are not justifications. They are completely wrong."

Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that two months ago President Ahmadinejad told Hamas that Iran would continue to support it until Israel was obliterated?

Edward Davey: Of course one is very concerned about many of the statements that President Ahmadinejad has made over the years, but I do not think that is relevant to this particular battle and the way in which Israel is going about it.
	I believe that friends of Israel—people who believe in Israel's right to exist and want to support Israel—have to be very frank with her at these times, because she is making such an historic mistake. In doing that, we must put strong pressure on Israel, as well as on Hamas, to stop its actions. Israel needs to know that it is not just dealing with words; we will take actions and there are consequences to what she is doing.

Paul Rowen: rose—

Edward Davey: No, I will not give way for a while.
	Israel needs to be reassured that we are with her against the Hamas rockets, but she needs to know that we will not stand by and see her jeopardise her own long-term future. We need to put pressure on Israel for another reason: the rest of the world needs to know that we mean it. The truth is that this action is radicalising, and will radicalise, people across the world. They are being radicalised not just against Israel, but against the west. They are blaming us too, as happened with the disastrous war in Iraq. For our security and global security, we need to use foreign policy to prevent a further spurt in the growth of extremism throughout the world.
	What should that pressure be? We started with a resolution from the United Nations Security Council. We strongly welcome that, and the Government's role in securing resolution 1860. We wish that it had come sooner, and we wish that there had been no United States abstention, but it is clearly a step in the right direction. However, we need to go further, and Liberal Democrats have argued almost from the beginning of the conflict that there are two measures that the Government should take. The first is suspension of the new upgraded EU-Israel co-operation agreement, and I was pleased that the European Union agreed to that yesterday afternoon. Interestingly, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) first proposed that on 30 December, the Foreign Secretary said that he was naïve. It now seems that he was not so much naïve as right. The Government and the EU should lead public opinion, but their decision eventually to suspend that new agreement suggests that they are following public opinion, so the measure is not as powerful as it should be.
	Our second proposal for action is an arms embargo. It is inconceivable for Britain to send arms to Israel now. How can we condemn its action as disproportionate, as the Government have done, when we are willing to send arms? That is ludicrous. Even if the Government reject that embargo proposal, as it appears they will, the House needs to be assured that arms control policy on Israel is being strictly enforced.

Marsha Singh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I will not give way.
	On Monday, the Minister gave me some reassurance, but we need to hear more about how we are monitoring the use of British arms that are sold to Israel and how the inspection process works. The Minster should give more detail. Will he also tell us how we can be assured that arms that we sell to other countries—whether the United States or elsewhere—do not end up in Israel's hands? We sell components for F-16s to the United States, which we know it has sold to Israel. There are concerns, and I hope that the Minister will reassure me.

Paul Rowen: Does my hon. Friend agree that a third area in which the UK should take a lead is in ensuring that the Security Council refers the atrocities on both sides—by Hamas and by Israel—for proper investigation as war crimes, because they are unacceptable? I agree that Britain should lead public opinion and not follow it. It is clearly unacceptable that more than 1,000 people have been killed—the UN headquarters in Gaza was bombed today—and nothing is being done about it.

Edward Davey: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, although I would not necessarily use all his words. However, we need an investigation. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary early this week, following his statement on Monday that the Government support an investigation as soon as possible. I am grateful for the Minister's elaboration on that, but I urge him or his colleague, when responding to the debate, to say a little more. He rightly said that the investigation would have to wait until there is a ceasefire, but who does he envisage carrying out the investigation, and under what remit?

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: I shall give way, but this is the last time.

Andrew Murrison: I am sure that most hon. Members agree that Israel has a right to defend itself against almost uniformly hostile neighbours, and that we must view arms exports in that light, but does he agree that a litmus test might be the veracity of the story from Israel that white phosphorus has not been used as a munition? That is the Israeli army's line, and if it is true we might take one view, but if it turns out to be false, as the UN is saying, we might have to take an entirely different view.

Edward Davey: Our position on an arms embargo is not related to the use of white phosphorus, but to the need to get a ceasefire and to put pressure on Israel to move towards that ceasefire. The use of white phosphorus should be the subject of an investigation, because, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, white phosphorus can be used in a way that is against international law, particularly if it is used against civilians, and that would have to be investigated.
	We also need to be putting pressure on Hamas. We should use our contacts, particularly in Damascus, to urge Hamas to come to the negotiating table and to push for a ceasefire. Hamas needs to know that unless it makes it clear that it will end violence, it will not get the legitimacy that it seeks in the eyes of the outside world.
	If we use the tools of diplomacy to put pressure on Israel and Hamas we can bring about a ceasefire more quickly. I know that an awful lot of democratic action from our Government and others is under way and we hope that that will be successful as soon as possible. Many of us suspect that there will miraculously be a ceasefire in the run-up to next Tuesday and the inauguration of the next President of the United States. That is perhaps a happy timing, but it might also explain why Israel took this action at this time. Let us hope that we can bring about the ceasefire before next Tuesday, because with every hour and every day more people are dying, more children are dying and more people are suffering.
	After the ceasefire, we need to redouble our efforts for a permanent peace settlement. The Minister was quite right to say that this is not just about the last few weeks, but is about months, years and decades. When I was in Israel and Palestine last November, I spoke to Dr. Fayyad, the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who is central to the peace negotiations on the Palestinian Authority's side, and to Dr. Tal Becker, the policy adviser to Tzipi Livni, who was in the room during the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and was in the room during the Camp David negotiations. The message I got from both sides was that they were making real progress with the negotiations. Some of the substantive detail was being taken forward. They were both saying the same thing to me, even though they were not in the same room at the same time, which I took as rather a good sign.
	There are some substantive positive developments, but they are not well known, because the parameters within which the negotiations are being undertaken means that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That means that press releases about the progress that has been made cannot be issued. I was convinced by both sides, however, that there has been progress. However, the problem is that behind the secret progress the Palestinian Authority of President Abbas has not been able to show progress on the west bank to the wider international community or the Palestinian people. The economic progress that Tony Blair has been trying to pursue as a middle east peace envoy has not really happened. The improved security that we have sought is in place in Jenin but in few other places.

Stephen Crabb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I want to finish. Most importantly, the freeze on settlements that was crucial to the Annapolis agreement has not happened. Illegal settlements continue. That has seriously undermined the peace negotiations and seriously undermined President Abbas. What I fear most of all is that that episode has cut the legs from under President Abbas. I hope that I am proved wrong but I think that the Israelis have made a serious error and they will rue the day that they decided to take this action.

Roger Godsiff: I am most grateful to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. The recent pictures that we have seen on television and the harrowing stories that we have read in the press have shocked and angered many people in this country, not least in my constituency. The pictures are so shocking that it could be easy to assume that all Israeli citizens support the actions of the Israeli Government, and it would also be easy to assume that all the people living in Gaza support the elements in Hamas that have been firing regular salvos of rockets into southern Israel. I do not believe that that is the case.
	It has been said on many occasions that the first casualty of any conflict is the truth and that would certainly appear to be the case so far as the bombardment by the Israeli army and air force is concerned. Israeli Government spokespersons make nightly appearances on television seeking to justify why, for example, a UN school which had been assigned as a temporary refuge, and whose GPS co-ordinates were given to the Israeli army, was bombed, or why Shifa hospital in Gaza city was attacked. Those justifications are not only disingenuous, but are vehemently challenged by the UN and other aid agencies on the ground. They refute the allegations that those, and similar facilities, are being used as a cover for Hamas military activities. The conclusion that many people have drawn is not only that the "justifications" of the Israelis are untrue, but that they mask the real intention of the onslaught, which is to destroy as much of the civilian infrastructure of Gaza as possible as a form of collective punishment of the people of Gaza for electing an Hamas Government.
	The first duty of all Governments is to protect the integrity of their country and to protect their people from attack. I do not mean to trawl through the history of the last 60 years, ever since the United Nations decided to partition Palestine and to approve the creation of the state of Israel, or the subsequent history of conflict and missed opportunities for a lasting settlement based on the creation of a Palestinian state and the so-called two-state solution. However, we surely need to question whether the killing of more than 1,000 Gaza civilians is a proportionate response by Israel to the provocation of missiles being fired into southern Israel.
	We also need to question whether the onslaught is not—I regret to say this—part of a parting shot from a thoroughly discredited American President and Administration who have singularly failed, throughout the past eight years, to understand the complexities of middle east politics, and who have naively believed that the promotion of democratic elections in countries with little or no history of democracy will solve everything. That is, of course, exactly what happened in Gaza. Unfortunately, the people elected a Government who were unacceptable to the discredited Bush Administration.
	A second question that has to be considered is whether the policy of isolating Gaza and imposing an economic blockade has not been a major factor in precipitating the current carnage. Of course Israel and its protector, America, would have been concerned by the rhetoric of Hamas when it was elected, and its avowed commitment to destroying the state of Israel, but many seasoned commentators on the middle east have pointed out that Hamas was elected by the people of Gaza as a reaction to the incompetence and corruption of the previous Fatah Administration, and because of the work that Hamas carried out on the ground in helping ordinary people. The IRA's political wing, Sinn Fein, won political support in Northern Ireland using the same tactics.
	Many people would argue—I have come to this view myself—that if Israel had sought to engage with the Government and people of Gaza when its troops and settlers left; if it had, as a gesture of good will, left intact the illegal settlements for the people of Gaza instead of pursuing a scorched earth policy of destruction; and if it had subsequently sought to promote trade and economic development with the people of Gaza instead of building a wall around Gaza and taking even more Palestinian land to construct that monstrosity, there would have been a better chance of persuading the people of Gaza that co-operation was better than continuing conflict.
	Prior to 1967, Israel was surrounded by four countries, three of which—Egypt, Jordan and Syria—opposed its right to exist. However, that has not stopped Israel from making lasting peace with both Egypt and Jordan, or from entering into negotiations, albeit through intermediaries, with Syria to bring about a lasting peace with that country. The idea that the people of Gaza should suffer collective punishment for electing an Hamas Government, and that they should be blockaded into submission until that Government renounce their reason for existence, was, frankly, disingenuous and symptomatic of the simplistic view of the world that the Bush Administration have had, particularly since the traumatic events of 9/11.
	The most pressing need is for a ceasefire, properly monitored by the United Nations. Above all, there has to be a just settlement with regard to the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, so that there can be lasting peace in the middle east.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I apologise in advance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I cannot be here for the winding-up speeches, as I have to catch a train.
	The events of the past three weeks in Gaza are a tragedy in which there are no winners, except those who do not wish to see a peace settlement in the middle east. There will be time for recriminations when the fog of war clears, but it is vital that we understand the depth of tragedy. It is a tragedy for the people of Gaza, who cannot even become refugees, because there is nowhere for them to flee to in the face of bombardment. It is a tragedy for Israel, of which I have been a friend for a long time and whose great peace rally in Trafalgar square five years ago I not only attended but addressed. It is a tragedy for Israel, because it has forced it from the moral high ground of self-defence into a strategy in which it has met terror with greater terror. By following that course, it has lost many friends, and I still ask how a member of the United Nations can turn its back on a UN Security Council resolution.
	It is a tragedy for President Abbas who, for all the co-operation that he has tried to achieve with Israel and for all the protestations that he has made over the past three weeks, has not been able to protect the Palestinians in Gaza. It is a tragedy for the elements of Hamas—and there are such elements, because I have spoken to them—that sought to direct that movement towards the democratic path and that saw themselves ostracised when they won their election victory. That handed power to the militants. It is a tragedy for them, because it will be much more difficult for them to return to that path. It is a tragedy for the peace process, because peace processes, as I know, depend on confidence, which has been shattered by what has happened over the past three weeks. It is a tragedy for the security of the international community, because of the radicalisation of many people in the Arab world, as a result of which, in the end, we will all suffer.
	What we have seen is a dark moment in the effort to try to find a peaceful solution in the middle east. Many people say that it may well have derailed a two-state solution. I sincerely hope not, but there are steps that must be taken if we are to see this dark night end and a new dawn come. First, Israel must be persuaded as a member of the UN to accept the UN ceasefire, to open the borders and to allow Gaza to exist again socially and economically. If it does so, we can put pressure on Hamas to abide by agreements that weapons will not be transferred into that state, and we can make sure that we use our influence to that end. I would like efforts to be made, because one problem in the middle east peace process is Israel's inability to find the partner with which it can make the deal. I would like efforts to be made to bring together a representative body of Palestinians which does not, as is the case at the moment, represent Fatah on one side or Hamas on the other, but which genuinely represents Fatah, Hamas and Christian Palestinians on the west bank, as well as the 11,000 prisoners, and with some form of representation from the refugee camps, so that when an agreement is made, that is done not on the basis of Israel and one faction but Israel and a body that represents all the Palestinian people. That is an essential part of the way forward.
	I would like the international community to begin to engage with Hamas. It should look behind the rhetoric, about which we hear so much, at the reality of what its members talk about privately As hon. Members know, I have been talking to Hamas for two years, and it talks about accepting the existence of the state of Israel, and accepting that a Palestinian state will live alongside the state of Israel. Those may not be the words that the Quartet is looking for, but surely it is enough to open a dialogue and take the matter forward.
	I should like to press the new United States Administration to make a real effort to bring about a settlement. I was involved in Northern Ireland, and in the end what really helped was the US sending Senator George Mitchell over. He did not just turn up for two or three days here and there—he came over permanently, and he presided over a peace process that, in the end, was successful. That type of commitment is needed, and I hope that, under the new US Administration, we will see that level of commitment again.
	We must accept, too, that any settlement must be comprehensive, not just between those Palestinians and the Israelis, but including the surrounding states, including Syria and the political entities in Lebanon. Those are areas where there is a sense of hope for the future, but the night is very dark at the moment. It is also very dangerous, for the region and for the rest of the world.
	When the ceasefire comes, I hope that our Government will be able to use their influence to move the process forward—not in the piecemeal fashion of the past but in a comprehensive way that might at last remove this terrible situation from the face of the earth. In that way, we can create peace in a land where no one deserves the horrors of the past three weeks.

Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and I agree very strongly with what he said. He referred to Northern Ireland, and one of the lessons of that conflict is that sometimes one needs channels for engagement with people. That need will not always arise at times of one's own choosing, but such channels are a necessary preparation for political solutions later on.
	One of the tragedies of the situation today is that everything could have been so different after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005. The Foreign Affairs Committee went to Gaza in December 2005: we drove from north to south, and we were able to see the greenhouses left behind by the settlers after they had left, and to get to the Rafah crossing. We saw the controls that were in operation there, and they were a bit like the controls at an airport terminal. The Italian carabinieri were in charge, and police officers from Romania and Denmark were working with them as part of the EU mission to Gaza. They were all performing a very important role. Coaches would arrive from Egypt, and people would get off and go through the Rafah crossing. Their bags would be checked and scanned, and sometimes goods would be held back because they were being proposed for sale or importation illegally. Those goods could be collected later.
	Families were being reunited at that time. The House must understand that, for many years, the town of Rafah had expanded into Egypt, with the result that families had members on both sides of the crossing. As a senior Israeli politician who was in London this week told me, many of the tunnels in the area run from a family's home on one side of the crossing to its home on the other side. The tunnels were used to bring food through, as well as weapons of all kinds. Those weapons included things from Iran via Yemen and Sudan, which presumably came through Egypt before being sent through the tunnels.
	The circumstances of what is happening in Rafah today are very different, because of the closure of Gaza and the incidents that have taken place. It is not only after the breakdown of the latest ceasefire that we can talk about people dying: in 2006, more than 680 Palestinians and more than 20 Israelis were killed as a result of the continuation of the conflict.
	The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, got engaged, briefly and actively, in trying to work out a channel with regard to the Philadelphia corridor. There were further breakdowns but finally the ceasefire was agreed that lasted for six months between June and December last year. I do not have time to go into all the circumstances of how that broke down, but it is clear that, even before the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1860, we needed a ceasefire to stop the conflict in Gaza and the deterioration that will follow.
	In the past week, we have seen the impotence of the international community, which the general public around the world do not understand. They believe that our Government and other Governments must be able to do something to stop the fighting. They see pictures of the horror every night on their televisions, and they do not understand why it continues.
	Yet the conflict in Gaza is not the only one going on in the world. Today, as part of the civil war in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lankan army is bombarding areas in the north-east and killing many people—but we are not seeing that because the television cameras are not there. Only members of the Tamil community in this country and a few others are really engaged with what is going on in Sri Lanka.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Gapes: I am afraid I do not have time.
	Killing is still going on in Darfur and in Congo. The international community needs to engage and to be more active. We hope that when President Obama comes to office on Tuesday, he can make a difference, but let us not be misled. He is not a miracle worker. It will take sustained engagement—sustained engagement by the United States, unlike the disasters of the past eight years, when there has been sporadic engagement from time to time.
	We will also have to make sure that the Arab world takes a more responsible attitude to a solution to the conflict. We need a comprehensive agreement between Israel and its neighbours. We need a two-state solution. Reference has already been made to Syria, and Egypt has a key role in providing the guarantees for security to allow the opening up of Gaza for trade with Israel and with Egypt—the opening up of those borders, but the prevention of the weapons coming in.
	The British people, and particularly many of our young Muslim people, are very angry. We need a political solution now.

James Clappison: This subject engages sympathies across the House and there is often a marked lack of detachment. On this occasion, however, I commend—it is not often that I commend the Government—the speeches from the Minister and from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). We have had balanced speeches from two of the Front Benches in the debate.
	I support what I regard as the pragmatic search for a solution that will bring an end to the scenes that we have seen over the past few days and over the longer period in which the rockets have been fired. I urge the Government, through their representations, to seek a sustainable solution. The key to the durability of a solution is an end to the firing of the rockets and an end to the supply of armaments into the Gaza strip. What on earth do people want weapons coming into the Gaza strip for? What possible purpose can that serve? That should be followed in short order by the supply of humanitarian aid, which is much needed, to the population of Gaza.
	The key to the matter is how it began. It began with the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel over a long period. What on earth were the Israelis supposed to do? Were they expected to put up with that over a longer and longer period? When was action expected to be taken on it? We have to see the situation from the Israeli point of view.

Angus MacNeil: I hear the hon. Gentleman's concern about arms. Given the deaths of 1,000 civilians in the Gaza strip, does he still think the UK should be selling arms to Israel?

James Clappison: I want to stop the current situation, and the hon. Gentleman wants to stop it. The key to that is removing the conditions in which the immediate conflict began. It began through the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel. The objective is to stop that. The Israelis are satisfied with that solution. They withdrew from Gaza, they removed their settlements, and they have no wish to expand into Gaza. The conflict is not part of an Israeli attempt to take over Gaza. They simply want to see the end of rockets being fired at their citizens. I ask hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches how thrilled members of the public in their constituencies would be if they were subject to rocket attacks. Would hon. Members expect their constituents to come to them and ask would could be done about it?
	Let us see an end to the bombardment and a sustainable solution. That will be a first step towards a wider solution. I do not yet have a great deal of confidence in Hamas. I listened to the very interesting speech from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and I pay tribute to his expertise on the subject. Judging Hamas by its actions and its words, as we must inevitably do, we have not yet seen much open evidence of its peaceful intentions.
	I hope very much that a leader of Hamas will feel able to come forward, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, and say publicly that they recognise the state of Israel, that they are prepared to abide by the conditions that the international community have set them, and that they are prepared to abide by previous conditions and give up terrorism as a starting point; then, there can be talks. There is little point in Israel having talks with Hamas before Hamas recognises it and those fundamental conditions are observed. However, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is right and that Hamas will soon do that. It has certainly had no shortage of opportunities to do it in the past.

Mohammad Sarwar: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the crisis in Gaza and the middle east is due to the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and the refusal of the Israeli Government to accept United Nations resolutions and withdraw to pre-1967 borders?

James Clappison: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. As I hope I made clear in an earlier intervention, I would like a resolution of the situation and I fully accept that there has to be a viable and sovereign Palestinian state and that there will have to be territorial adjustments. I am not going to stick firmly to one propaganda position or another.
	On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman and his supporters have to recognise that Israel has to be secure; that is uppermost in Israelis' minds. That is the solution before us, and it can be achieved. However, rockets have been fired, a pledge to destroy Israel has been made in the Hamas charter, anti-Israeli propaganda has been put out and the Iranian leadership has given words of support for Hamas. None of those things does anything to advance us towards the pragmatic solution that I would like to see.
	First, there should be an end to the conflict on that basis and to the suffering on both sides, including among the population in Gaza—suffering that I believe has been caused by Hamas. Then, there should be a wider solution that removes the seeds of conflict and provides a better future for all the people in the middle east. The fact is that what we need to do is simple, although certain hon. Members fail to do it: bring all the pressure possible on Hamas to stop firing rockets, which created the conditions that brought about the current conflict.

Marsha Singh: What is important today is not any discourse on the past or on what may happen in future, but how we get a ceasefire and stop the carnage in Gaza. Let me say at the outset that Hamas has to bear some of the blame for what has happened; if somebody fires a rocket at my house, I am going to fire one back.
	However, the actions of the Israeli Government and military have been completely and utterly disproportionate. The situation is not the result of an aberration on the part of the Israelis—it is not something new. On 30 April 2008, John Ging, the director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, told the International Development Committee that the humanitarian situation was extremely grave. He said:
	"I would characterise the situation here as shocking in terms of the deterioration in the humanitarian situation. I also have to say it is shameful, what we are now witnessing first-hand here and on the ground. Both the principal issues continue to be the access issues, whether it is for equipment or whether it is for supplies. Also the violence underpins the humanitarian situation here in Gaza. When it comes to violence and that pervasive sense of fear and danger that is created in every household by any situation here, I will just update you on the latest statistics. From January of this year 344 Palestinians have been killed and 756 have been injured, and in those figures are the deaths of 60 undisputedly innocent children and a further 175 children injured."
	What did the international community say? Nothing. What was our response to the crisis that was already happening? Nothing. He went on to say:
	"What we are not seeing is the accountability that one would expect when it comes to the use of lethal force, and that is leaving an ever-growing sense of impunity, bad faith and a sense of despair among the general population."
	This was the situation of the Gazan people at that time. In March 2008, Christian Aid, with other NGOs, published a report that said that
	"the severity of the situation has increased exponentially since Israel imposed extreme restrictions on the movement of goods and people."

Stephen Crabb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Marsha Singh: No—please let me proceed.
	The report outlined the gravity of the situation: the rising unemployment, lack of basic medical supplies, blackouts, economic collapse and denial of emergency treatment outside Gaza. It described the situation as a "humanitarian implosion". The blockade of Gaza turned Gaza into one huge prison, and that is the reality that the Gazan people have faced in 2008. The Palestinian people of Gaza were already living in a humanitarian hell, and I cannot find the words to express what they are living in now.
	I said earlier that the Israeli response was disproportionate, but I find that word completely inadequate to describe what the Israelis are doing. They have used F-16 jets, helicopter gun ships, missiles, artillery, tanks and even phosphorus. What is the result? One thousand dead and thousands injured; utter destruction of the civilian infrastructure, including schools and power stations; and utter collapse of the sewerage system. Save the Children said in a briefing yesterday that at least 184 children have been killed—I think that the figure is now over 300—and more than 600 injured. An estimated 80,000 to 90,000 people have been displaced, among them 45,000 to 50,000 children. Health services are collapsing, ante-natal care has been suspended, and all vaccination programmes have been interrupted. The list goes on and on, and so does the killing, the brutality, the inhumanity and the disregard for the rules of war.
	Yesterday, I read an even more chilling account in  The Independent, which quoted B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, as saying that at least three Palestinians in Gaza were shot dead yesterday as Israeli soldiers fired on a group of residents leaving their home on orders from the military and waving white flags. That is absolutely disgraceful. I described the situation as a humanitarian hell. Is there anything worse than hell? Well, if there is, it exists now in Gaza, and the Gazan people are living in it.
	Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. It must be held to account by the international community. What we have to do today is send the strongest possible message to Israel. Arms embargoes or other embargoes are fine, but we must say today that we will expel the Israeli ambassador and recall our ambassador. That will be a shock to the Israeli system, and they may then begin to listen.

James Arbuthnot: I am, and I am proud to be, the chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel.
	The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) said that Hamas must bear some share of the blame. I will read to the House what the Egyptian Foreign Minister said a couple of weeks ago:
	"The Israelis have been warning you that this was coming if you continue your cross border rocket attacks. Egypt has been imploring you to stop firing rockets into Israel, but you ignored our words. We have been urging you to renew the cease-fire with Israel, but you refused. You have brought this upon yourselves. You are responsible for what is happening to the people of Gaza."
	I will read what an adviser to President Abbas said, also a couple of weeks ago:
	"The one responsible for the massacres is Hamas, and not the Zionist entity, which in its own view reacted to the firing of Palestinian missiles. Hamas needs to stop treating the blood of Palestinians lightly."
	Concentrating on the word "massacre", there is no doubt that that is what it is. It is awful to watch. During the British involvement in Iraq, there has also been a terrible massacre of civilians, as well as of fighters. The same is true of Afghanistan. The same was also true of the second and the first world wars, but that does not make it wrong for the British to have fought. The distinction lies between those who set out to kill and maim civilians and children, and all too often succeed, and those who set out to avoid doing so, and all too often fail. I know which side I am on.
	The situation is awful, and it is not as though the Israelis do not know that it is awful. It is not as though the leaders of Hamas do not know that, either, and I have the appalling impression that Hamas has come to a calculated opinion that the more Palestinians who die, the more extreme Israel appears and the better Hamas's cause is served. That is why it uses civilians as human shields and schools from which to launch rockets. In 2007, I visited Sderot. I spoke to schoolchildren and went into two of their bomb shelters. I spoke to parents and learned about the daily trauma with which their children grow up.
	There is absolute unity in Israel on the issue. Any Israeli Government who had failed to react very strongly to the barrage of rockets would have immediately been removed and replaced with a much harder-line Government than one led by Tzipi Livni or Ehud Olmert. Tzipi Livni has been seriously trying to negotiate with the Palestinians, and none of us in the House should wish to see a more hard-line Government.

Chris Mullin: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he think that what we have seen in Gaza in the past week is likely to reduce the number of rockets being fired into Israel or increase it?

Hon. Members: Reduce it.

James Arbuthnot: Some of my hon. Friends are saying that it will reduce it, but I really do not know. All that I can say is that the awful carnage can stop, but there is no point in a mere ceasefire if it merely creates a temporary lull. If we go back to the constant cycle of Israel leaving Gaza, Hamas rearming, Hamas killing Israeli civilians so that Israelis live in constant fear and Israel going back into Gaza, everyone will continue to suffer and we will be no further forward. That is not sustainable, and action must be taken now to address the long-term concerns and break that cycle.
	On the other hand, the discrepancy between the economic performance of Israel and the grinding poverty of Gaza is also unsustainable. It cannot be acceptable for people living in Palestinian areas to have an income one tenth of that of people living in Israeli areas. We have to address those living standards, but we cannot do that without the international investment that will come only when the security situation is improved. It cannot be acceptable for the free movement of Palestinians to be constrained for ever.
	The borders of Gaza have to open, but not for the smuggling of explosives and suicide bombers, as happened all of last year. Until that stops, no Israeli Government will allow free passage, and why should they? To the people of Palestine, we must send this message: there can be hope for the future, but it has to be in your hands. When Israel leaves Gaza, as it no doubt soon will, you have the opportunity to turn away from rockets, terror and death and towards development, education and prosperity. The history of the area is littered with missed opportunities. Please let this not be another one.

Richard Burden: I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). May I make a suggestion to him, in a spirit of understanding? Although I recognise the pictures of Sderot that he painted, because I have also been there, he may benefit from going to Gaza and speaking to Palestinians there to ascertain whether he has a legitimate and genuine understanding of their position.
	To avoid doubt—because of time I cannot take interventions—let me preface my remarks with several matters that I want to put on the record. First, all states, including Israel, have the right to self-defence and a duty to defend their citizens from attack. Secondly, the Palestinians also have the right to defend themselves from attack and, under international law, the right to resist occupation. Thirdly, civilians should not be targeted or have their presence wilfully or recklessly disregarded in conflict. I therefore do not believe that firing Qassam rockets from Gaza at or near predominantly civilian areas in Israel falls within the definition of acceptable resistance.
	However, the fact that those rockets are fired provides no justification for the massive attacks by air, land and sea that have already killed more than 1,000 people, 322 of them children. When medical staff, aid convoys, United Nations schools and installations have been hit, even when the high-tech Israeli army has the GPS co-ordinates for those installations, it suggests that Israel is acting in contravention of the provisions of the Geneva convention on the protection of civilians in time of war, and that the term "war crime" should be used.
	I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making major efforts to secure a ceasefire on both sides and to get the blockade lifted, so that the 1.5 million people in Gaza will not be forced in future to live in an impoverished prison 25 miles long and between three and seven miles wide. However, people in the UK and those whom I met in the middle east last week are not asking when the international community will express disapproval of what is happening in Gaza, but when we will put a stop to it. We need to do more to show that we are serious.
	I therefore welcome the EU's decision to defer upgrading its relationship with Israel, but we need to go further than putting it on hold. Under the EU-Israel association agreement, Israel has clear obligations to respect basic standards of behaviour and of human rights. If Israel is not prepared to fulfil those obligations in practice, it cannot expect to keep receiving the privileges of the agreement, and it should be suspended. If the Geneva convention and international law are being breached so blatantly, proceedings must be brought to hold people to account.
	If, as many hon. Members have suggested, there is to be an embargo on smuggling into Gaza weapons which threaten the lives of Israeli civilians, there should also be an arms embargo on the commercial or subsidised sale of arms to Israel when foreign-made F-16 fighters are attacking Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
	However distasteful Israel's actions have been in past three weeks, and, I would argue, before that; however unacceptable is its refusal to renounce violence to achieve its ends; and however much it has refused to meet its obligations under UN resolutions, the road map, the Annapolis treaty or the agreement on movement and access, the Israeli people still have rights, and we should not put preconditions in the way of their elected representatives being a party to the negotiations that must take place or deny them a stake in the final agreement. However, if that is the case with Israel, it must also apply to the Palestinians.
	I want Hamas to accept the Quartet's three conditions in theory and in practice, just as much as I want Israel to match its theoretical acceptance of those conditions with abiding by them in practice. Israel has not done that. That means finding ways in which to bring Hamas into the process, not excuses for keeping it out, and not as an alternative to dealing with President Abbas or Fatah. Unless there is unity among Palestinians, no deal will ever stick. We did not respond positively when Hamas moved to electoral politics or when it declared several unilateral ceasefires in the past few years. We squandered a second opportunity for progress when a national unity Government, involving Fatah, Hamas, independents and others, was agreed in the summer of 2006. Let us not make that mistake again.
	I welcome the comments that the Minister for the Middle East and Africa made in the other place recently, when he said that the British Government would welcome a national unity Government and deal with their membership. When my hon. Friend the Minister makes his winding-up speech, will he assure me that we will not only welcome such a development, but do what we can to bring it about?

Malcolm Bruce: I am pleased to speak after two of my colleagues on the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), both of whom made very pertinent contributions in their own way. Importantly, we on the Committee, which has produced two reports on the occupied territories, have been increasingly depressed at the deterioration of the situation over a long period, and we are obviously horrified at the current situation.
	The Department for International Development allocated $10 million for emergency relief, mostly through UNRWA, on top of £243 million that has been allocated over three years to support aid and development in the occupied territories of Palestine. However, not a penny of that money would have been needed if there had been peace. That money could have been spent in parts of the world where poor people need it just as much. It is frustrating for us that aid resources are being channelled in that way—not for development, but simply for first aid—and that conflict is costing our taxpayers.
	I pay tribute to John Ging and the UNRWA team in Gaza, who are not only supporting the Gazan people through this time, but effectively sharing their suffering. UNRWA has given us detailed day-to-day information on just how horrific the situation has been. Bad and intolerable as the situation has been over the past two years, what has happened in the past three weeks has escalated the suffering, stress and humanitarian trauma to the civilian population beyond anything that can be justified by any provocation. Indeed, I am appalled at Members of this House trying to justify that degree of disproportionate action. Those 322 children have absolutely no responsibility for anything that has happened, and they are now dead. The House should acknowledge that we cannot stand by and accept that.
	Not only that, but comments have been made about the role of Hamas. Hamas was democratically elected, and however much we might dislike it or condemn some its utterances and many of its actions, the actions of the past few weeks are likely to make Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank more likely not only to support Hamas rather than less, but even to begin to wonder how they will ever live in an independent Palestinian state alongside an Israel that behaves in the way that it has behaved in the past two or three weeks. It is important to recognise that if we do not take firm action and give a lead in delivering a proper peace process, we may well create a united Palestinian entity—but it will be Hamas. Then the international community will have to determine how to deal with it.
	Our Committee did not agree on how we should deal with Hamas, but most of us took the view that we had to engage in some way. The irony is that the United Kingdom has a long history of doing precisely that kind of thing. We had to deal with Mau Mau, with EOKA and with the IRA. No agreement was ever achieved other than by talking to those groups before agreeing the conditions for concluding an agreement. That seems to be a lesson that we can reasonably take from history.
	In a very good statement on Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that the United Kingdom
	"supported resolution 1860—to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend."—[ Official Report, 12 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 23.]
	However, I would suggest that that resolution goes further than that. This is the crucial point that the Foreign Secretary was making. It is not just that Israel must recognise its responsibility as a legitimate state and a member of the United Nations, with all the obligations that that entails. The point is that the international community, particularly the United Kingdom, which played such a crucial role in creating the state of Israel, would be tainted by association with breaches of international law, flagrant disregard for UN resolutions and the possible perpetration of war crimes if we failed to ensure that a member state with which we are closely associated complied with international law on terms that we subscribe to. If we fail to act, we will be tarnished with collective guilt by association.
	That is what our citizens are saying so strongly to the Government. They feel that they share responsibility for the conflict, and they want the Government to accept their responsibility to use their initiative, in concert with others, to try to ensure a resolution. Surely we have to seize an opportunity from the worst and darkest hour. All this death and conflict—and the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, that Israel has made a tactical error—can be turned around if the new Administration in the United States, with a lead from the United Kingdom and Europe, say that Hamas has to recognise the mistakes it has made, that Israel has to recognise its responsibility and, above all, that we all have to recognise that the Palestinian people should not be exposed to this degree of suffering in future. We have to ensure that the regime that operates in Israel and the Palestinian states is designed to give prosperity, peace and a functioning state to Israel and Palestine, because the alternative is the disintegration of the entire region.

Louise Ellman: There is no doubt whatsoever that the loss of civilian life, particularly that of children, as shown on our television sets every day, is truly horrifying. It is extremely important that we understand who is responsible for this deplorable situation. Responsibility in general for what is happening lies firmly with the Iranian-backed Hamas. Hamas is recognised as a terrorist organisation by the European Union, Canada and the USA, and it is an uncompromising Islamist, anti-Semitic organisation, as shown by the principles set out in its charter and shown through its actions. That includes sending out suicide bombers with the deliberate intent of murdering as many Israeli civilians as possible, calling for jihad as the only solution to what it calls the Palestinian problem, seeing martyrdom as the greatest of virtues, and stating that Jews worldwide are corrupt, control the media, run the world through the protocols of the elders of Zion and stir up revolutions throughout the world. It refuses to recognise the existence of the state of Israel on the grounds that it is a religious edict to refuse to do so, and states that the day of judgment will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews.
	Hamas is not only about what is written in its charter, but its actions, and it has sent more than 5,000 rockets and missiles, targeted at Israeli citizens, since Israel—correctly—left Gaza. It used the ceasefire to extend its rocket range, importing Chinese and Iranian rockets with longer and longer ranges. Indeed, there are now 900,000 Israeli citizens in the range of rockets being fired from Gaza by Hamas, and it was Hamas that refused to extend the ceasefire. The action that Israel is now taking, difficult as it is, concerns targeting not civilians, but Hamas activists, its weapons, its infrastructure and its tunnels. The reason why so many civilians are, tragically, being killed is that Hamas callously places them in the line of fire.

David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Louise Ellman: No, I have no time.
	That is why, on 14 January, Israel made a complaint to the United Nations Security Council about Hamas using children as human shields. There is a Hamas war room under the Shifa hospital—an absolute disgrace. On 9 January, the Israeli defence forces found a map of al-Atatra, a neighbourhood of Gaza, which was used by Hamas to record the location of explosive devices. That map showed that houses in that area were booby-trapped to put civilians in the line of fire, knowing that that would cause the maximum number of civilian deaths. That is callous, outrageous and deplorable. I am surprised as well as outraged that the same people who express genuine concern about the loss of civilian life—I share those concerns—do not also condemn Hamas for its callous use of civilians as a human shield. Let us remember that the organisers and leaders of Hamas not only extol the virtues of martyrdom and jihad but proclaim, "We love death. You love life." That is what Hamas is all about.
	When we rightly show our concern about the number of civilians who are injured and who die, we should remember the complaints made by Egypt, on 28 December, that Hamas has been preventing the injured from going across the border into Egypt for treatment. That is the nature of Hamas. When people jump so readily to condemn Israel for protecting its civilians, after claiming that it has a right to do so, they should not ignore the nature and deeds of Hamas, which sets out deliberately to kill as many civilians as possible.
	What is the way forward? It is through the enactment of resolution 1860 by both Hamas and Israel. That can only be done through steps being taken so that rockets stop being fired on Israeli citizens on a permanent basis. Hamas has no right to fire rockets and missiles on Israeli civilians. The Israeli settlers and soldiers have left Gaza: 8,500 settlers left, many of them removed by force, yet Hamas—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.

Elfyn Llwyd: The bombing of the Shij'ia family health care centre in Gaza city, run by the Near East Council of Churches, was an outrage. The Israelis rang 15 minutes before to say that an attack was imminent. Why, therefore, was a deliberate attack being made on such a centre?
	Journalists are not allowed into Gaza, as is the case in Zimbabwe, and precious little is being reported as it happens. We see things on television, but we are given only a partial view. There are many Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, including democratically elected members of Parliament. Will Israel confirm the number of Palestinian prisoners it currently holds, and when, if ever, it will release political prisoners? My party has always campaigned for a two-country solution, which is the only common-sense approach.
	The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was saying that innocent people will be killed from time to time. However, as Gaza is only the size of Wrexham town in north Wales, with a population of 1.5 million any bombardment is bound to create collateral damage, as anyone can see. I echo the many calls for a ceasefire, but I am not optimistic that it will happen immediately. One concrete step that has been referred to is for the European Union to suspend Israel's privileged trade agreement with Europe, which requires Israel to respect human rights. That would send a clear signal of the need for an urgent ceasefire.
	There is a great deal of urgent feeling in the House about the issue, and I refer hon. Members to early-day motions 400, 408 and 423. What is the middle east envoy—the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Blair, who has not yet set foot in Gaza—currently doing? His premises in Jerusalem occupy the entire floor of a hotel at a cost to the public purse of £700,000 per annum. I ask myself, "Is that proportionate?"

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) would not give way to answer questions, so I wonder whether he will have a shot at answering this one. If there is any truth in the allegation that there is a deliberate and normal use of civilians as human shields—in other words, that they bring the attacks on themselves—why are journalists banned from Gaza when they could see precisely what is being alleged?

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. If there was nothing to hide, journalists would obviously be free to go in. Indeed, it would be in Israel's interests to allow them free access, so that the whole world could see that, transparently, there was nothing going on that should not be going on.
	Several Members have pointed out that more than 1,000 people in Gaza have been killed, including many women and children. A United Nations watchdog said recently that Israel was showing a "manifest disrespect" for the protection of children in Gaza. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that although Israel signed a UN protocol condemning attacks in places where children were likely to be present, those are still continuing, day after day. Obviously I want a ceasefire. I believe that we need an accord between Israel and Palestine, but of course there must be a ceasefire first.
	I am disgusted by the present situation, with Israel's complete disregard of the Geneva convention in respect of protected people and with its continued illegal occupation of territories outside its pre-1967 borders. What is the United Kingdom Government's position on Israel's targeting of United Nations schools? Do they support calls from United Nations officials for a full UN-backed investigation of the bombing of Palestinian schools by Israel, with the aim of bringing those responsible to book? How do they view Israeli claims that Hamas fighters were present at al-Fakhura school in Jabaliya before it was bombed? Do they believe that the presence of fighters legitimises the bombing of a United Nations school? Those are some of the questions that urgently need answers, and no doubt they will be answered in due course.
	We now know that white phosphorous is being used. Unless it is being used for shielding purposes, that in itself constitutes a contravention of the Geneva conventions.
	I ask the Government to consider immediately an arms embargo on Israel similar to those imposed in 1982 and 1994. We all want to see a ceasefire, but previous calls for one have been totally ignored. The disproportionate—I use that word again—military intervention in Gaza is nothing short of a war crime, and it galls me that the international community's call for a ceasefire is being studiously ignored by Israel.
	A couple of years ago, we debated whether Iraq had been in breach of United Nations resolutions. Indeed, it was the alleged breach of those resolutions that led to the British Government's justification for the subsequent attacks. On 8 January, the United Nations Security Council, through resolution 1860, called for
	"an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza".
	Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, responded that Israel would continue its campaign, and the BBC reported that at least 50 air strikes had hit Gaza as the United Nations was passing the resolution.
	Israel has form, in that its current conduct clearly mirrors its conduct in Lebanon in 2006. Why do we have these double standards? Why is Israel considered to be above international law? Could that be linked to the fact that Britain exported nearly £19 million-worth of arms to Israel in the first quarter of last year? Is that the reason? I do not know what the reason is, but it is apparent to me that Israel is acting as though it were above international law, and that cannot be right. I believe that until it starts acting responsibly and comes to the table to discuss peace, it should be considered an international pariah.

Andrew Dismore: The violence that we continue to see in Gaza and Israel is a horrible tragedy. While no one can help but be moved by the tragic images of dead and injured innocent Palestinian women and children and the large loss of civilian life, it is important to understand why Israel felt forced to embark on military action.
	For the past eight years, Israel's southern communities have faced more than 8,500 rocket, missile and mortar attacks. Over 5,500 rockets have been fired since August 2005, when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in a bid to stimulate the peace process. That means, on average, one missile being fired at Israel every three hours for each of the last three and a half years. The rockets have brought death, injury, destruction and disruption to the people of southern Israel, including both Jewish and Arab people.
	Despite the continual rocket fire, Israel agreed a ceasefire with Hamas. When that ended six months later, in December last year, imperfect though it was, Israel wanted to renew it. This was despite the fact that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups used the ceasefire to fire more than 400 rockets at Israel, to build more illegal tunnels, to rearm with smuggled Iranian weapons and to train their fighters for future terrorist attacks against Israel. It was Hamas that rejected a renewal of the ceasefire—indeed, it fired 60 rockets at Israel while Foreign Minister Livni was going to Egypt to try to renew it. Along with other Palestinian groups, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas fired more than 170 rockets, missiles and mortars at Israel in the six days that followed. Israel submitted two protest letters to the UN Secretary-General and the president of the UN Security Council about the increase in rocket fire. In an interview on Arabic television, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert warned Hamas to stop the rocket attacks. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have put the blame for the current escalation of violence squarely on Hamas. It is clear that the international community ought to have been more engaged earlier, as the confrontation in Gaza and southern Israel developed over the previous months.
	Israel's operations in Gaza have attacked Hamas command centres, weapons-smuggling tunnels, training camps, rocket-manufacturing facilities and armament storage warehouses. Israeli forces alerted Palestinian civilians ahead of planned targets, using leaflets and phone messages to urge civilians to leave the immediate area, yet a further 500 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel, killing four Israelis and injuring many others since 27 December. Hamas is firing Iranian Grad-Katyusha missiles, which are hitting Israeli cities almost 40 km from the Gaza strip. Almost 1 million Israelis are now in range of rocket fire. No Government can sit idly by as their citizens come under attack from rockets, missiles and mortars on a daily basis. Israel has the right to defend herself.
	Attributing blame does not end the fighting, however, and I fully support our Government's efforts in working for an immediate and permanent ceasefire. I welcome the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1860, which called for just that. The text, which was introduced in Britain's name, should be immediately implemented by both Hamas and Israel.
	To achieve a sustainable and durable ceasefire, there must be an end to arms trafficking. This means a complete arms embargo on Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. No longer can rockets be permitted to be fired at Israel, and no longer can the dire economic and humanitarian situation in Gaza be tolerated. That is why we must also see a full reopening of the Gaza crossings, with safety and security for both sides. There must be increased and improved access for humanitarian and economic assistance for Gaza, which must be properly distributed. Neither side can secure peace and a solution to their problems through military action.
	Israel did not seek this war and wants to live in peace and security with her Arab neighbours. Peace agreements were reached many years ago with Jordan and Egypt. Israel has been actively pursuing talks with President Abbas since the Annapolis conference in November 2007, and also indirect talks with Syria.
	In stark contrast, Hamas, while originally democratically and fairly elected, carried out a coup in the Gaza strip in June 2007. Since then, Hamas has suppressed all forms of opposition, including killing Fatah activists. Hamas uses its own people as human shields, positioning its firing positions and arms dumps among homes, schools and hospitals, inevitably increasing civilian casualties, which it then exploits for its own propaganda aims. It is Hamas whose charter still calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. It is Hamas which persecutes its own people in Gaza who are Christian, trade unionists, Fatah members or gays.
	Hamas knows what it must do if it wants to be accepted into the international community. The Quartet principles require it to renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previous international agreements and obligations. This asks no more than was asked of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in 1988, which the PLO accepted.
	However, in these depressing times it is crucial not to lose sight of the fact that there is still an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. That process needs the full support of the international community and renewed and increased engagement by the incoming President Obama Administration if we are to see real progress.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I wonder if my hon. Friend can answer the following question, which I also put earlier. If there is systematic use by Hamas of civilians, schools, hospitals and the like in order to shield weaponry, why are journalists not allowed into the Gaza strip so that that can be verified independently?

Andrew Dismore: It might surprise my hon. and learned Friend to learn that I agree with him. I think journalists should be allowed in, because I think that would be in Israel's interests. Indeed, I understand that  The New York Times, no less, which has a reporter in Gaza, has confirmed Israel's account of the use of a school as a missile-launching site.

Louise Ellman: It might be helpful for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to note that journalists have now been allowed into Gaza; indeed journalists from, among others,  The Times and TV stations are there.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention.
	The Gaza tragedy should make the international community more determined than ever to facilitate a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel, together with the Palestinian Authority, must actively demonstrate progress in their ongoing negotiations. Only a process that demonstrates real improvements in the situation on the ground will have the support of both the Israeli and Palestinian people, with increased security and better lives for both. The ultimate goal is that elusive two-state solution: the creation of a viable Palestinian state living next to a safe and secure Israel.
	We also need more active engagement from the Arab world. In that context, I welcome the Government's actions in supporting the Arab peace initiative, which offers the full normalisation of relations in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from occupied land. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right when he speaks of
	"a 23-state solution—22 members of the Arab League plus Israel".
	Only a peace agreement that has the support of the wider region can succeed.
	In the few moments left available to me, I simply wish to refer to some of the impacts of the conflict in the United Kingdom. Since the start of the fighting in Gaza, more than 150 anti-Semitic incidents have been reported to the Community Security Trust from around the UK; more than 130 incidents have been reported in January, making it the worst month on record. The Gaza conflict is being used as an excuse for racism; anti-Semites are using an overseas conflict to justify their actions. Although most demonstrators voice their protests in an entirely legitimate way, there have been reports of many examples of anti-Semitic chanting, and of anti-Israeli demonstrations where Jewish, rather than specifically Israeli, symbols have been used on placards. It is despicable that we hear people on demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington calling for the closure of Jewish shops in that area, that we hear incitement to violence and that there is violence against the police as a consequence. That is not the way that people in this country should behave. We have had a passionate but measured debate in this Chamber, and that is what we should see in the outside world. People feel strongly on both sides of this argument—Jewish people and Muslim people, those who support Israel and those who support the Palestinians—but the UK is a democracy and we must debate these issues properly and fairly, without anti-Semitism and without islamophobia interfering in the discussions, passionate though they may be.

Hugo Swire: Those of us who were rather cynical about the prospects of the Annapolis conference always thought it was not a question of if Israel went into Gaza, but when. It has been clear for some time that America has decided that the only way to deliver a two-state solution is to marginalise Hamas and promote Fatah. It is worth remembering that almost 43 per cent. of the people of Gaza voted for Hamas, largely because of the corruption and inefficiency of the Fatah-based Government in Ramallah. Unpalatable though it may be to some, although Israel is always cited as the only democratic country in the region, Gaza is being run by the representatives for whom it voted—Hamas won 74 out of 132 seats.
	In fact, if there is a democratic deficit anywhere in the region, it is, unfortunately, perhaps in Ramallah itself: the Palestinian Legislative Council has not met for more than 17 months; not a single piece of legislation has been passed in 2 years; and President Abbas has ruled by decree since 2007, when Hamas took over Gaza. The greatest irony is that it could be argued that under basic Palestinian law, President Abbas is no longer legitimately President, as his term of office ran out last week, on 9 January—although I do concede that the law has been amended in order to say that presidential elections and legislative elections should take place at the same time. Violence has been meted out in equal measure by Hamas senior figures to Fatah senior figures and vice versa.
	It is also worth remembering a point that I raised with Majalli Whbee, Israel's deputy Foreign Minister, when I was last in Jerusalem: that 46 democratically elected members of the PLC are under arrest in Israel, most of whom are from Hamas, including the PLC's Speaker. The deputy Foreign Minister told me that he had no knowledge of that, which was curious, and that he would get back to me. If he is listening to this debate, I am still waiting.
	I was cynical about Annapolis because of the weakness of President Abbas and his ability to negotiate, even on behalf of the west bank. I was cynical about Annapolis because I could not understand how President Abbas could negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians when no one from Gaza was represented at the conference. I was cynical about Annapolis because it was President Bush's last desperate throw, and I was cynical because it was Prime Minister Olmert's last throw.
	Why did Israel decide to go into Gaza with such violence now? It would be interesting to know whether it had planned to do so before, during or after Annapolis, and again I ask the Minister whether he has any knowledge of that. It is a good time for Israel because Livni, Barak, Netanyahu and Mofaz can show how demonstrably strong they are in the run-up to the February elections. The Israeli defence force had to show that it could reach out and hit hard against its enemies following the failure of the last war in Lebanon. It needed to demonstrate to Iran, through Iranian-backed Hamas, that Israel retained the ability, capability and desire to hit out at its enemies. It took the opportunity to fill a vacuum in the White House, created by an inert outgoing President and an incoming President who, regrettably, has given mixed messages to date on his attitude to the middle east process.
	I have the honour and pleasure of being chairman of the Conservative middle east council. I, too, have visited Sderot, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) that what has happened there is intolerable. I have met children who are traumatised by what has happened, and I have seen their parents and their teachers. No one can defend what has happened. However, unlike my right hon. Friend, I heard from people there who felt let down by the Israeli Government because they were not given sufficient early warning or sufficient protection. It is no good saying that the Israelis cared for them in the way that has been suggested this afternoon.
	It is worth pointing out that, according to Israeli Government figures, the number of rockets fired from Gaza was reduced from hundreds in May and June to total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months. Twenty is still unacceptable, but can the Israelis be sure that they were launched by Hamas? Could they conceivably have been launched by another organisation, such as Islamic Jihad, over which Hamas has little or no control? As there was no international monitoring mechanism, it is difficult to say with authority who is to blame for the breakdown of the ceasefire, although it clearly broke down when the Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks on 4 November, killing six Hamas operatives.
	It is impossible in the short time that we have been given this afternoon to discuss what is going on in the middle east. I have been to Gaza, and the problems have not arisen in the past 19 days; they have gone on for the past 19 months.

David Winnick: I am certainly not an apologist for Hamas. I do not support its general attitude towards Israel or its philosophical attitude in wanting a religious state. I certainly do not support rocket attacks on Israel. They are not right, and I doubt whether that is how the Palestinian people in general want the dispute with Israel to be pursued. In connection with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, there can be no justification whatever for attacks on individuals in this country, whether Jews or Muslims, because of the situation in Gaza or anywhere in the world. Such attacks must be deplored, and I am sure that we all do so.
	The way in which Israel has acted, however, since the invasion of Gaza has rightly horrified international opinion. It has certainly horrified me. Israel has demonstrated what can only be described as a totally callous indifference to civilian casualties. I do not accept the view that has been expressed by some who have put the Israeli viewpoint today that the reason for the civilian casualties is that Hamas has used schools, mosques and so on. I believe that Israel simply does not care how many casualties it has caused among civilians. It is indifferent, unfortunately, to Palestinian lives.
	Reference has been made to the 315 Palestinian children who have been killed, as well as the 95 women, quite apart from the number of those who have been seriously injured. Some have been paralysed for life. I read yesterday of a four-year-old who has been paralysed for life, since her chances of a successful operation are very remote indeed. Her two sisters, aged eight and two, were killed outright as a result of Israeli action attacking their house. Can that be described as collateral damage?
	I referred to international opinion, and if I am horrified by what has happened it is easy to understand what is felt in Arab streets. Would things be any different if what was happening had resulted in so many Jews around the world being treated in such a way? What would be the attitude of the international Jewish community if that was the case? I know what I would feel, and I am of Jewish origin. I would be protesting in the strongest possible way. If I would do that, should I not protest today, and at every opportunity, about what is happening to Palestinians? Are the lives of Palestinians worth less than those of Israelis? I cannot accept that for one moment.
	Bearing in mind the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), let me say that it is wrong to come to the conclusion that Jews all over the world somehow unanimously support what Israel is doing. Quite a number of Jews, in Britain and elsewhere, are not only opposed but are strenuously opposed, in every possible way, to what is being done. It certainly should not be considered that it is being done in the name of Jews.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is right: inevitably, there is a cynical feeling that as the election in Israel approaches, rival attempts are being made to show who can be stronger and who can stand up more to Hamas. It is very difficult to come to any conclusion other than that what has occurred since 1 January has to some extent at least been determined by the coming election.
	Again, incidents have occurred and I want to mention just two, apart from what has happened today to the United Nations headquarters. Two UN schools were bombed, and 40 died. One other incident should not be overlooked. Israelis took more than 100 Palestinians to what was considered a safe house. What happened? Twenty-four hours later, the Israeli military shelled that same house, killing 30 or more. I only wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), who put the Israeli point of view—I respect her point of view, however much I disagree with it and however strongly I feel that she is wrong—had found herself in some way able to criticise what Israel has done.
	I have always advocated a political solution. There cannot be a military solution. Israel cannot be destroyed and can defend itself against any group or state, so we need a political solution. I am afraid that I am not persuaded that Israel has yet reached the point where it genuinely wants a Palestinian state—not some kind of statelet or satellite, but a genuine, viable and independent state. When Israel comes to that point of view, and is really willing to negotiate in an honest manner to end the injustice that the Palestinians have suffered for so many years—more than 60, now—that will be the time for a political solution that, hopefully, will end the kind of bloodshed that we have seen in the past few weeks.

Alistair Burt: It is a privilege to take part in a debate in which extraordinarily well-crafted and well-expressed strong views have been stated with passion and honesty on both sides. I am a Conservative Friend of Israel, and have been for as long as I can remember. The organisation was started by my Conservative predecessor in Bury, Michael Fidler. I do not know any friend of Israel who is not profoundly saddened and distressed by the events that led up to the conflict in Gaza, and by the conflict itself.
	I am also a strong supporter of the Christian relief organisation World Vision, and I have visited its work in Bethlehem. I was in touch with Charles Clayton, the director in Jerusalem, only today. I support the statement that World Vision issued, which says:
	"World Vision continues to hold all parties to the conflict responsible for protecting the rights of children. The life of every child in Gaza is currently endangered. The safety of Israeli children in areas near the Israeli-Gaza border is also at risk. World Vision is increasingly concerned about the lasting psychological impact of the current crisis amid reports of severe trauma among children."
	We pray for all the work that the people in that organisation do, and for their safety.
	My stance is the same as that which we have heard expressed by so many others. There is no argument about the horror of Gaza. The issue is what can be done to prevent the conflict from being yet another bloody chapter in a cycle of bloody chapters, with more still to come. I was at school in 1967 in Bury in north Manchester. I grew up with the 1967 war, not as a gentile inflicted with the guilt of the holocaust, but understanding what the phrase, "sweep Israel into the sea", actually meant to the families of the Jewish children with whom I was at school. As I became an adult, I thought that that expression of feeling about Israel had gone for ever. There was slow, gradual progress in the middle east, as enemies became perhaps not friends, but at least partners in doing something about the situation. Bilateral agreements were made, land was given back, and Israel came out of Sinai and Gaza. Slowly but surely, people managed to make something of the tragedies of the past.
	However, there have always been those who would undermine that progress; those who resorted to terror—to suicide bombings or indiscriminate terrorist acts—and those who used terror as a cover for their state's views. There were those who had a mindset that just could not accept 1948; it was not that they did not know what to do with the occupied lands, but they actually did not accept the fact of 1948 at all. Eventually, it became possible for a state, Iran, to say, at the highest level that the state of Israel should be wiped from the map—again, that phrase comes back. Iran's proxies, Hamas, took action.
	What was Israel to do about that, time and again? Nothing? Should its hands be tied? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) put it accurately: what do the Israeli Government do when their citizens are constantly terrified? Nothing? Do they say, "There's nothing we can do?" What is a state to do when its opponents hide their weapons among children and in villages? Should it say, "We can't attack because there's a disparity in firepower?" That did not stop the NATO allies from attacking Serbia. Disparity in firepower does not stop our work in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what is Israel to do?

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Burt: No.
	Sooner or later, the attacks and the rockets become Gaza, today. If the tragedy of Gaza, and the lives now being lost, are not to be part of a bloody chapter and lost in vain, the peace and the ceasefire that come about as a result of the conflict have to be lasting. There is only one way in which that can be ensured. Hamas, its allies and the states that support it have to move, and have to be seen to be moving, inexorably towards an acceptance of the state of Israel and an absence of terror. The situation has to stop. If that acceptance were stated tonight, the Israeli troops would be out of Gaza. We have to find a way in which that can be done.
	It has started to become acceptable to say, "Perhaps there's an answer with no Israel." That mindset has crept into world politics again; it has to go. The terrible conflict will continue until those who give any form of support to that mindset can be prevented from going to the people who have it and saying, "Israel has to go."
	History in the middle east is important. It is important anywhere, but perhaps it is more important in the middle east than in most places. However, sooner or later, the past of our fathers and grandfathers has to be seen as less important than the future of our children. Every great conflict between peoples and nations has had its answer, with somebody, somewhere being prepared to let go.

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Alistair Burt: Over a period of decades, Israel has let go a number of times. Now we have to see another side be prepared to let go of its past to make progress in future. Only if the future and the present become more important in the middle east than the past will we see an end to this.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.

Parmjit Dhanda: I was fortunate to represent the Government for a year as Minister for community cohesion. One of my roles was to try to tackle radicalisation, particularly in the Muslim community, and to work with the Jewish community to try to protect it from anti-Semitism. I support but also pity my successors, because what is going on in Gaza will make their lives extremely difficult. I am pleased and proud about the bonds and relationships that we managed to strike up, not least those with the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies, and I think that we achieved some great things. However, I am afraid that we are going to see—and Jewish friends tell me that it is already starting to happen—a greater incidence of anti-Semitism as a consequence of what is happening and, I can only assume, greater radicalisation in the UK, as people become angry about the scenes that they see on their television sets.
	What of Gaza itself? If things carry on as they are—I would not just call it something disproportionate or call it a war; it has become a slaughter, it is so severe—I fear that Gaza will end up as nothing but bandit land when this all over and done with. Ultimately, it will not be Hamas that the Israelis have to deal with but far more extreme organisations such as al-Qaeda—both the core organisation and its derivatives—which will make life much harder.
	In my constituency, in the past few days, I was fortunate enough to spend some serious, good time with young Muslims who are trying to do everything that they can to keep the bonds of community in the local area. Three young girls—Afifa, Tasnim and Suphiya—took it upon themselves to organise a march in the town centre last Saturday. Nearly 300 people attended, and they were determined that it should be about children, women and people of all faiths showing sympathy for people who had been killed on all sides of the conflict. They wanted to make it clear, too, that they condemned the rockets from Hamas, as well as the disproportionate action by the Israeli military.
	The TV pictures are graphic. We have seen footage of children with bullet holes caused by bullets that have not ricocheted but have gone clean through their bodies. The United Nations has used the most condemnatory language imaginable after its schools were hit in the incident described by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Constituents have raised another incident with me that disturbed them a great deal. Children were left starving, clinging to their mothers' dead bodies, as the Israeli military would not allow rescue workers into a building for four days. All those things, I fear, are likely to heighten the radicalisation in the UK and across the world and, ultimately, will not help the Israeli people or their Government.
	There is no military solution. At the end of the day, all parties must get together and talk, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that we have heard some extremely interesting contributions on the subject of Hamas and the fact that is a democratically elected organisation. What do we do, and what will the incoming US President do, with regard to the dialogue with Hamas? As difficult as elements of Hamas are to deal with, what do we do to ensure that that dialogue takes place?
	In the very brief time that I have left, I want to talk about the meeting that I and a delegation of Labour Friends of Israel had with Shimon Peres. It is worth looking at some of the things that he has said and written over the years about the relationship of Israel and the Palestinian territories with Europe. He has proposed that Israel might one day become a member of the EU, and I have no problem with that. However, we would have to ensure that the necessary leverage and strict provisos were in place to ensure that Israel lived in harmony and peace with its neighbours and that it respected the human rights and territory of the Palestinian people.
	If we could get those safeguards in place, it might be that Shimon Peres is on to something. Right now, when so much carnage is taking place, that sounds as realistic as any other solution.

Clare Short: I want to use the six minutes available to me to report on a recent visit that I made with European parliamentarians to Gaza, and to try and correct some of the propaganda and untruths that have been spread across the airwaves and that have been repeated here in the Chamber today.
	We visited in early November, and we found Gaza to be besieged, with people suffering acute shortages because Israel had closed the crossing-points. Schools lacked paper, pencils and pens, and there were shortages of food, drinking water, drugs, medical equipment and virtually everything else. As a consequence, nearly half the children and most of the women in Gaza are anaemic. The main hospital was under great strain even before the present terrible bombardment began, and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross testified yesterday that it is now in an absolutely terrible condition.
	There is also a terrible smell of sewage along the sea front, because Israel will not allow the importation of the parts needed to build an essential sewage treatment plant. Civil engineers are available and money has been committed, but Israel blocks the project, with the result that raw sewage goes into the sea. Also, the Israeli navy fires on and attacks fishermen if they go beyond a few miles out. Hungry people therefore eat polluted fish and are constantly sick.
	As we left, Israel blocked the import of EU-supplied fuel, with the result that the power plant—which had already been partly bombed—had to stop operation and most of Gaza was cast into darkness. Thus, the people of Gaza were besieged and suffering even before the terrible bombardment began on 27 December.
	The present problems all flow from the response by Israel, the EU and the UK to the Palestinian people daring to vote for a Hamas Government in January 2006. Those elections were monitored by large numbers of international observers, all of whom said that they were free and fair. After the elections, however, the UK and EU adopted an approach that cravenly supported extreme Israeli and, of course, US policy. They refused to recognise the properly elected Hamas Government and instead set out to divide and rule the Palestinian people.
	That approach was justified by the claim that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. The claim has been repeated today, but what does it mean? As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said earlier, international law holds that people in an occupied territory are entitled to resist occupation. They are not entitled to target civilians—no power is, although Israel is never held to account for what it does. In fact, Gaza's home-made rockets cannot be targeted accurately, so they illegally injure civilians. That is wrong and has been denounced by everyone.
	However, we need to be clear about proportionality, which is one the conditions of the international rules of war. According to the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem, in the seven years between the first of those primitive rockets being launched and the start of the current massacre, the rockets killed 13 Israelis and one foreigner. That is terrible but, in the same period, Israel killed 4,781 Palestinians: nearly 3,000 of them were in Gaza, and one in seven of them was a child. How can the rockets justify the current slaughter? It is all regrettable, but the slaughter is not justified by the rockets. It is disgraceful that the claim that it is has been repeated constantly in this Chamber.
	In addition, there was a ceasefire negotiated through Egypt. Hamas held to it for five months, but Israel breached it in an amazing assault in early November and by its intensification of the blockade. The fact that Hamas agreed to the ceasefire and held to it has been written out of the picture and is never brought to public attention. So all these claims that the rockets justify the attack or that Hamas would not agree a ceasefire are untrue. Just as in the case of the Iraq war, the slaughter is justified by a constant litany of lies. That is one of the things that is enraging young Muslims in our country and across the world.
	Once we were in Gaza, we met the elected parliamentarians who were not in prison—there were pictures in the Parliament of all those who had been imprisoned by the Israelis—and we had detailed discussions with Prime Minister Haniya. He said that the west had asked three things of them before it would recognise Hamas's authority and negotiate with it: first, to recognise Israel; secondly, to halt violence; and thirdly, to accept all previous agreements negotiated with the PLO. He said that Hamas had responded by saying, first, that if a Palestinian state was established on 1967 boundaries, it would recognise the agreement and declare a long-term ceasefire. It has already been made clear that that is its position. That is another thing that is lied about.
	Secondly, Hamas had negotiated and held to a ceasefire. That, therefore, dealt with the claim about violence. Thirdly, on previous agreements, notably Oslo, which it thought a very bad agreement—and I agree; it undermined the position of the Palestinian people—it recognised that the agreement was properly reached by the PLO, which had the authority to do so at the time. So it seems to me that Hamas has met the demands of the west, yet still no negotiations and no contact occur. Instead, the present massacre is allowed to take place.
	Why will the UK and the EU not recognise Hamas? Why will the UK not hold Israel to international law? Why do we not take action under the Geneva convention? We are completely unbalanced. On the basis of international law, there could be a settlement. The UK and the EU allow Israel to break the law, so there cannot be peace and a settlement. The trouble will go on indefinitely and we will all reap the wreckage of it.

Chris Mullin: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) has put some valuable first-hand information on the record this afternoon in what has been a pretty good debate. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) asked what Israel was to do in response to the rockets fired at it. In the 1970s and 1980s in this country, we suffered a number of terrorist atrocities that killed large numbers of our citizens and were indiscriminate and absolutely unforgivable, but we did not go and level west Belfast in response. Governments of both persuasions looked for a way of establishing contact with the perpetrators and at seeing what could be done to engage with them. Ultimately, after 20 patient years, we achieved peace.
	I hold no brief for Hamas, but I am sorry to say that Israel has only itself to blame for the rise of Hamas. If Israel had made more effort to engage with moderate Palestinians and dealt with its own fundamentalists, the extremist virus, if that is what it is, would have never have taken hold in Gaza.
	I shall make three points. The word "unacceptable" has been used by spokesmen on all three Front Benches this afternoon. In the circumstances, the word "unacceptable" is not wrong, but it is wholly inadequate, given what we have witnessed in the past few weeks. I, like others who have spoken, believe that what we have witnessed are war crimes. They are out of proportion to the undoubted provocation that has occurred.
	The use of white phosphorous flares has been mentioned. Those are imported from the United States, incidentally. The other day the Israelis dropped a 1 tonne bomb on the house of a Hamas leader in a crowded residential area. They killed him, they killed his family and they killed many of his neighbours. Anyone who drops a 1 tonne bomb on a crowded residential area is not entitled to be surprised by the consequences. Today, I gather, they have been shelling multi-storey housing blocks, in addition to the UN compound. I accept that they do not target civilians, as Israeli spokesmen repeatedly say, but they do not care whether they hit civilians or not. That has been clear. I also agree with those who said that it is utterly counter-productive from the point of view of Israel to proceed in this way. It will not stop the rockets and it will recruit a new generation of young men and women to extremist causes because of the experience that they are undergoing now.
	My second point is that I do not believe that, under its current management, Israel has any intention of allowing a viable Palestinian state to be built. One has only to look at the advance of the settlements across the west bank—330,000 people are living there at the moment, and 12,000 came immediately after Israel pulled 8,000 people out of Gaza. It has been importing zealots from all over the world. They are not the original citizens of Israel or their heirs; people from comfortable addresses in Brooklyn have been brought in to colonise the west bank—and those people have a fall-back position if it all goes wrong.
	A while ago in my constituency, I attended a talk given by a Christian woman from Bethlehem. She brought slides that showed how this accursed wall that Israel has built surrounds the city and described the humiliation that its citizens, Christian and Muslim, have to go through to get in and out. She told of how the situation has collapsed the economy. The wall appears to be in large part about stealing Palestinian land, because it separated a lot of farmers from their olive groves. The wall diverts to take in places of historic interest and goes right up against people's houses. It may be about defence in part, but I believe that it is also to a large extent about stealing land. I do not believe that the people who built the wall are fundamentally interested in achieving a two-state settlement.
	I understand the position of Her Majesty's Government. They have tried to adopt a balanced and restrained approach. I commend their efforts to achieve a ceasefire, but it is time to recognise that we and the European Union have no influence whatever on the current Israeli Government. The only country in the world with such influence is the United States, which has chosen consistently and over a long period not to use it.

Clare Short: The EU has a trade treaty with a human rights conditionality that gives Israel privileged access to our markets. Should we not just invoke the conditionality? That is serious leverage, and we should use it.

Chris Mullin: The right hon. Lady anticipates me—we should indeed do exactly that, and one or two other things besides.
	I was discussing America. I hope that things will be different under President Obama, but I am not optimistic given the extent to which the Democratic party is dependent on Jewish votes and how well organised that lobby is in the United States. The only influence that we can use is with the new Administration in the United States; we do not have any serious influence that I have noticed with the Israeli Government, and neither does any other EU country.
	Finally, the only way forward for us, faced with what we have witnessed in recent weeks, is sanctions of one sort or another. They could be economic and relate to trade agreements with the EU, as the right hon. Lady mentioned. They could be military—we certainly should not be selling weapons to the Israelis; why we are still doing so is a mystery to me. Sanctions could also be diplomatic. In the circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to think of withdrawing our ambassador to Israel and sending the Israeli ambassador home.

Richard Younger-Ross: There have been a number of excellent speeches this afternoon. I commend the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for making some excellent points and I should like to bring light to what was said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), who spoke with passion about the reality on the ground in Gaza.
	The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) touched on the historic nature of the issue, and a number of Members have tried to clutch at some point at which all this started. There is a great temptation for some to say that it all started when Hamas, or whoever, started firing rockets into Israel. That is a very simplistic way of looking at this conflict, and it takes us nowhere.
	A couple of years ago, I visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem. In Bethlehem, I bumped into an old lady on the streets and was introduced to her as a British Member of Parliament. She said, "I'm glad you've come because you need to sort out the mess that you started." In some people's view, the history of the problem goes right back to the 1920s. To argue that a person is guilty for this or that action takes us nowhere.
	I wish briefly to discuss a small incident that affects a constituent of mine, and then touch on a general point about war crimes. On 30 December 2008 at about 05:30 hours EMT, an aid ship, the MV Dignity, was 53 miles off the coast of Israel when it was rammed by a coastguard cutter vehicle from the Israeli navy. It bore a Gibraltar flag and therefore sailed with British protection. There were 16 passengers on board, and aid to be taken to Gaza. There were three doctors—one Irish, one English and one Palestinian. Also on board was Cynthia McKinney, an American Congresswoman, and reporters from CNN and al-Jazeera. The ship was organised by the Free Gaza Movement.
	The ship left Larnaca, Cyprus, at 7 pm on the evening of 29 December. At 4.55 am on 30 December, it was about 70 miles off the Israeli coast when those on board saw big searchlights at the stern. For about 30 minutes, the searchlights hovered around them, occasionally being taken away and brought back on. Flares were put up into the air by the Israelis. Two gun boats had been circling them for this period, with no radio contact despite calls from the master of the Dignity. The Israelis turned off the searchlights and all went quiet. Then, without warning, there was a massive crash in the bow, the Dignity began to splinter and suffered severe damage to the bow. The Dignity began to take on water but, thankfully, was not sinking. The master of the Dignity immediately put out a mayday call but got no response. The Israelis eventually spoke, stating that those on board were terrorists and threatening to shoot at the Dignity. They demanded that the Dignity return to Larnaca, but it did not have enough fuel to do so. Eventually, the Dignity received help from the Lebanese and headed for Lebanon guided by the Lebanese navy.
	That prompts serious questions about the conduct of the Israeli navy, in that it can make an unprovoked attack on a ship taking aid and supplies to the people of Gaza. If the Israelis genuinely thought that there were terrorists on board the ship, why did they not do what any British naval vessel would do—try to board it? Why did they not try to find out what was being carried on the ship? No—instead they rammed it, putting everyone's lives at risk. I know that the Foreign Secretary has promised to look into this incident, but I hope that there will be a full investigation. If these events are proved to be true, I hope that the Israeli ambassador will be called in to see the Foreign Secretary so that it can be explained to him that this is not acceptable behaviour and is against the laws of the sea.
	Let me turn briefly to the issue of war crimes. If white phosphorous has been used—it looks very likely that it has—and one looks at the overall way in which the Israelis have hemmed in and treated the Palestinians in Gaza, they have committed war crimes. People will argue that it was a one-off, that it was an accident and they did not mean to do it, or that it was justifiable in the circumstances. However, if a nation has a track record of breaking international law in such incidents, one has to question what people's motives were and whether they really knew what they were doing. In Lebanon, 1 million unexploded cluster bombs were left lying on the ground, 90 per cent. of which were fired in the last 72 hours before the deal was done in New York and the start of the ceasefire. If that is not using cluster bombs as mines, I do not know what is, and that is a war crime.

Phyllis Starkey: We have heard some excellent speeches, and I associate myself with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I add my voice to his in saying that the moderate elements of Hamas must be engaged in the discussions on the way forward.
	I wish to make three points to which I hope the Minister will respond. First, after the ceasefire—we all hope that it will be immediate, although we have been saying that for rather longer than we ought to have to—it is absolutely imperative that measures are put in place to stop the previous cycle. In that cycle there has been a ceasefire, then measures put in place that create a period of quiet, during which the underlying cause of all the problems, which is the Israeli occupation, is deepened, not lightened. The violence then breaks out again and we go through the cycle for the nth time.
	The conditions that are put in place after the ceasefire, with international observers, must protect not just the rights and security of the Israelis by preventing armaments from being smuggled for use against civilians, but the rights and security of Palestinians. Thus far, all agreements have failed to respect and protect their rights and security, and the Israelis have no interest in doing so—quite the reverse. The international monitors, observers, forces or whatever they are must protect the rights and security of the Palestinians not just in Gaza but in the west bank and East Jerusalem: only then will we stop the continuous expansion of settlements, the roadblocks and the Israelis' ability to nip in any time they fancy and assassinate somebody whom they think might be about to threaten them.
	My second point is about the serious allegations of human rights abuses, which have been detailed by a number of hon. Members. They have been made by the UN, which we have a duty to support, not by some tin-pot reporter from  The New York Times. They have been made also by the International Committee of the Red Cross and a variety of human rights organisations, including Israeli ones. There have been attacks on a United Nations Relief and Works Agency convoy and on UNRWA schools. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is no longer in his place, because UNRWA was there at the time and states categorically that there were no militants in that school or anywhere near it. I really do not know how some reporter from  The New York Times coming in afterwards, presumably embedded with the Israeli troops, has anything to offer.
	There have also been attacks on ICRC and UN personnel and ambulances. Children and other civilians have been shot in the chest and head. There was the white phosphorus attack on the UNRWA headquarters, which halted all aid, as well as attacks on a media building and a wing of the Shifa hospital. The most sickening thing was that at the very moment today when the Israeli Defence Minister was at last admitting that Israel did hit the UNRWA site and that it was a "grave error", the Israeli spokesperson Mr. Regev was still on television saying, "Oh, well, it wasn't us. It was probably Hamas. How do you know it wasn't them who were dropping phosphorus?" I hope that that destroys his credibility, if he had any, once and for all.
	The Israelis have a stated policy of what they regard as acceptable civilian deaths. It was printed in the  Washington Post in 2006. At that time, the agreed Israeli policy was that it was okay to attack militants, as long as only up to 3.14 innocent civilians—a precise little figure—were killed for every terrorist killed. If children were killed, the number was a bit more stringent. The exact figure was not given, but it was fewer than three civilian deaths allowed. That was the Israelis' policy, in writing, in 2006. I have no idea what it is now, but it seems to have been multiplied by about 100. The UK Government must support independent investigations into the abuses and make sure that Israel is held accountable.
	My final point is about the EU trade agreement. I am glad that the European Parliament has held back from ratifying it and that the European Commission has stopped all discussion. The trade agreement is a privilege, not a right. It for us in the European Union to give, not for Israel to demand. It has human rights clauses, and when it was introduced in Parliament, the then Conservative Minister William Waldegrave gave Members clear assurances that if those clauses were breached, the agreement could be suspended. That is what we should do now, as they have clearly been breached. Israel has breached and effectively suspended the agreement by breaking its part of the bargain.
	I want our Government to insist that the EU convoke the responsible human rights sub-committee to examine the evidence of human rights abuses. It should examine not just those in Gaza but, for example, the fact that Israel has just banned the two Arab parties in Israel from participating in the elections, thus effectively disfranchising the one fifth of the Israeli population who are Arab-Israelis. That is not in line with EU principles of human rights and democracy. Such actions have disqualified seven elected Members of the Knesset from standing again. All the examples that I have outlined are unacceptable and contrary to Israel's claims to be a beacon of democracy. The human rights abuses have breached the agreement, and we must work in the EU to suspend it; otherwise, all our human rights clauses become dead letters and the EU will be unable to uphold its intrinsic values of human rights and democracy.

George Galloway: I say to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is not in his place, that the international community is not impotent, but merely feigns impotence as an excuse for its failure to carry out its duties. Although the Minister's words were more robust, he essentially masked the same inaction as the languid and complacent Foreign Secretary, who performed in front of us on Monday.
	Compare and contrast British diplomacy on the subject that we are discussing with our response to Zimbabwe or, more particularly, the Russian conflict with Georgia. The Foreign Secretary was everywhere then, lecturing the Russians on what they must do. He even flew to Kiev, stood on the dividing line, and told Russia what the international community required of it.
	On Gaza, our Ministers boast of writing a UN resolution, which has been completely ignored. I would be embarrassed to say that I was the author of a resolution—which passed, not with international consensus, as the Minister claimed, but with the abstention of the United States, the only vote that mattered—if it were then ignored and the Government had no intention of doing anything to make its terms effective. That is what we have.
	The Foreign Secretary says that he does not want what he calls gesture politics, which were supported widely in the House today, such as an arms embargo, recalling ambassadors and requiring the withdrawal of Israeli ambassadors, because he does not want to isolate Israel. However, he and the Government were at the forefront of those who isolated the elected Government of Palestine, which was Hamas. They do not like to talk about it now. They prefer to talk about President Abbas, who illegally occupies the presidential seat in Ramallah. They refuse to acknowledge that the Palestinian people voted for Hamas.
	I have never been a supporter of Hamas. Like the noble and right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), I was, all my life, a supporter and friend of the late President Arafat. The Israeli attitude to President Arafat and Fatah when they were in power was exactly the same as their attitude to the Palestinian Administration of Hamas. Israel drowned Arafat's Administration in blood through a policy of assassination, settlement, wall building and economic embargo. The British Government wholeheartedly supported the embargo on Gaza to punish the Palestinian people for voting for a Hamas Administration.
	The Government's double standards in this affair are so brazen that people outside are boiling with rage. If that is not so clear in this building, people outside are furious. The danger of radicalisation, especially of the Muslim youth in this country, is clear and present. The Government are always looking for some cleric to whom to refuse a visa, or some Islamic organisation to proscribe to try to curb radicalisation. How radical does the Minister believe that British Muslims feel now, as they watch on the news the bombing of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and the slaughter of children that has been adumbrated here today? The Government's policy of tackling extremism and radicalisation has been set back by their complacency and ineffectual policy on Gaza, especially when compared with their militancy on subjects such as Russia and Georgia.
	I do not have time to say all that I have to say, but I want to say something to those who have been boasting about going to Sderot. I am amazed at how many Members of Parliament have been to Sderot. Did any of them see the ruins of the Palestinian villages on which Sderot is built or the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from Sderot and the south of Israel? Did any of them know that the refugee camps of Gaza are filled with the people who used to live in the villages on which Sderot is built?
	This did not start on 27 December. With respect to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), who made a great speech, it did not even start in 1967, when Sderot and other places were cleared. It started in this building, when Arthur Balfour, on behalf of one people, promised a second people the land that belonged to a third people. We are the authors of this tragedy.
	Everything that has flowed has flowed as a result of that declaration. For that reason, if for no other, the British Foreign Office needs to pull its finger out and stand up and be counted, alongside the British people demonstrating on the streets of London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere. Let us see some urgency from the Minister. Action speaks louder than words. So far, we have had no action from this Government at all.

Mohammad Sarwar: The sustained acts of brutal aggression to which the inhabitants of Gaza are being subjected at the hands of the Israeli Government are simply unacceptable and must be condemned. Such acts of aggression are not just disproportionate; they are outrageously disproportionate.
	In its heavy-handed approach, the Israeli military has given a terrifying display of its military might, killing more than 1,000 people, including 300 children. Does the Israeli Government truly believe that those innocent young children were terrorists firing rockets? The Israeli Government are also responsible for injuring more than 4,000 people, destroying thousands of homes and reducing countless buildings to their foundations. In doing so, not only have they broken established rules of international law, but they have brought shame on humanity and the entire world.
	The brutal scenes that we have witnessed on our television screens and read about in our newspapers have horrified the vast majority of the British public, including in my constituency, who support the Palestinian cause and feel strongly that we have so far failed the Palestinians in the current crisis. I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of people who have peacefully marched and demonstrated throughout the UK to show their solidarity with the people of Gaza at this difficult time and to demand an end to the bloody violence.
	The call for peace has come from members of all faith communities. I would like in particular to thank the group Jews for Justice for Palestinians for its recent statement in  The Times, which was signed by more than 500 Israeli academics, artists and writers, calling for an immediate end to the slaughter in Gaza. They have asked for an end to the blockade, the opening of dialogue with Hamas, without which there can be no durable peace, an investigation into war crimes that may have been committed by any party to the conflict and the suspension of the EU-Israel association agreement until Israel fulfils the basic human rights conditions on which it is predicated. I congratulate Jews for Justice for Palestinians on issuing that statement.
	It is important to stress that the actions of the Israeli Government should not reflect negatively on Britain's Jewish community. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) pointed out, such acts go completely against the ethos and morals of the Jewish faith. The atrocities being committed by the Israeli Government will do nothing to achieve peace and stability in the region. They will only cause more hatred and suffering, further damage and delay any possible peace process and make the world a more dangerous place, giving a propaganda victory to terrorist groups, which will use them to mobilise more support and radicalise young people around the world. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is now desperately dire as several aid agencies have reported that Gaza's population of 1.5 million is in urgent need of food, shelter, fuel and basic medical aid. That follows on from months of deprivation arising from Israeli restrictions and the siege.
	It is important to clarify a couple of myths put forward by the Israeli Government. This conflict did not begin 19 days ago with the firing of Hamas rockets into Israel. It began 60 years ago with the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. The ceasefire in Gaza was not broken 19 days ago by the firing of Hamas rockets into Israel. It was broken 10 days into an agreement previously made by Israel to end the inhumane siege of Gaza. The Israeli Government have, throughout the current crisis, used their military might to cause the relentless destruction of infrastructure and they have inflicted misery on innocent Palestinian people. In their excessive use of military force, they have shown little, if any, restraint while wreaking utter carnage in Gaza. It is time that we began to hold them to account. After 60 years of waiting for peace and justice—60 failed years—we owe it to the people of Palestine to find a lasting solution to this conflict.

Keith Simpson: As a number of hon. Members have said, this has been an excellent debate. There have been somewhere in the region of 20 speeches, many of which were made with great passion. In the two years in which I have been a member of the shadow foreign affairs team, I have attended many debates on the middle east, and I recognise that many hon. Members who speak in these debates often take one side or another, but they usually speak with a great deal of generosity. This week we have debated the tragic subject of Gaza three times: after the statement on Monday, during Foreign Office questions on Tuesday and in this debate.
	I shall touch briefly on the contributions of five of my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke with a great deal of knowledge not only of the middle east, but of the difficult task of trying to negotiate between two groups of people whose policies and views it is almost impossible to reconcile. He has done that in Northern Ireland, and he is doing it now in the middle east. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) has always been a staunch supporter of the state of Israel, and is a pragmatist in many respects. He argued strongly that whatever immediate solution came about, we needed to move beyond a ceasefire.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, is a firm supporter of the state of Israel, and he spoke in a considered, sympathetic and balanced way. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) spoke with great conviction and knowledge about the situation in Palestine, and emphasised the point that, in many respects, the situation among the Palestinians in Gaza was more representative and democratic than that in the west bank. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who is also proudly a keen supporter of the state of Israel and—I say this in the best possible way—a true Christian gentleman, argued about the almost conflicting situation of bringing together an independent state of Israel and a truly independent state of Palestine.
	I want to touch on three or four themes. Hon. Members quite rightly emphasised the impact of the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians under the assault of the Israeli defence forces. I recognise that most hon. Members have accepted that that is perhaps down to the law of unintended consequences, and that those civilians were not directly targeted. Hon. Members on both sides know, however, that fighting in built-up areas with a civilian population will lead to civilian casualties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and the Minister said, if accusations are made about war crimes or the breaking of the rule of the law of war, they should be fully investigated and, if necessary, charges should be brought.
	One of the problems in this debate is how, if we are to hold Israel to account, we are to hold to account a political party such as Hamas, which might also break the laws and rules of war. How are we to bring to account people who use civilian sites and use weapons against civilians? That is much more difficult to achieve, and we should not resile from that point of view.
	The Minister and others argued about how to establish a ceasefire. I am with the majority of colleagues who spoke in today's debate in saying that a ceasefire or truce will once again be only a temporary band aid for the problem. In the case of other ceasefires, not only in Gaza but on the border with Lebanon, the problem has merely been freeze-framed for a certain period. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes and others have said, we will succeed only if we involve the international community directly, and it will take many months, if not years, of great commitment.
	As several Members have said, without such commitment by a United States Government over a long period, I suspect that we will not get the movement that we want, on either the Israeli or the Palestinian side. It is not just a question of the United States of America bringing pressure to bear on Israel, but of the United States having the political, diplomatic, military and economic clout to bring pressure to bear on other regional powers. Several Members referred to the importance of the role of Egypt and Syria, but countries such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states must also be directly involved. If we do not do that, we will be back here in a few months' time, having had a ceasefire or a truce, another international problem will have emerged, while this one will have gone back down the agenda, and we will face another crisis.
	I am particularly concerned about the state of public opinion in Israel. As a consequence of any immediate ceasefire, it seems to me that the Israelis will think that they have only bought themselves a temporary truce. They will not have beaten Hamas militarily—they will perhaps have pushed Hamas back through a limited military action. However, as many Members have said, they will have been damaged in world opinion as a result of the images that have been projected of the suffering of the Palestinian people. That will be a political defeat.
	What is the role of the United Kingdom? We have diplomatic influence. We have a great commitment to humanitarian aid, which is of fundamental importance and is supported overwhelmingly by the British people, who want to see more of it. We also perhaps have some influence over an Israeli Government, who, I fear, will get into a siege mentality. As several Members have emphasised, our own Jewish and Muslim communities will be continually radicalised by the escalation of the conflict. The blowback from that will affect all of us. Any young Muslim or Jewish person watching the conflict is in danger of bringing it back here on to our streets and into our schools. It is therefore in our most narrow, pragmatic interests to be seen to be doing all that we can to resolve the problem.
	My final point is that we have so far been fortunate that the conflict in Gaza has not spread to the west bank, or, apart from a few rockets, to the border with Lebanon. We are always in danger of an outbreak of conflict, as we have seen, developing into a regional war. A regional war with missiles, and with at least one country possessing nuclear weapons, and another that might be about to have nuclear weapons, is a frightening prospect.

Bill Rammell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a good debate, but the division of opinion that it has revealed across all parties underlines the difficulty of securing a resolution of the problems in the middle east. Powerful contributions, demonstrating real concerns, were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar). I shall try to respond to all the specific questions that I was asked; I hope that I shall have enough time to do so.
	The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) began by asking me about the attack made on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency today, and the effect that it would have on the distribution of aid. The honest answer is that it is too early to make an assessment of the impact of the bombing. Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly have some impact, and it reinforces the calls that we have made urging all parties to respect their obligations and ensure the safe and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) made a very powerful contribution. He rightly referred to the equal importance of Jewish and Palestinian lives. He also referred to the Hamas boycott. We need to be clear about the fact that the Arab League has mandated Egypt to talk directly to Hamas. We are in regular contact with both parties, and I think that that is the right thing to do.
	The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made a balanced contribution. I think that when he said that the Israeli action was a disaster for Israel, he was at the very least advancing a powerful argument that needs to be listened to. There is, I think, a real risk that as a result of actions that are being taken, extremists will be strengthened and the moderates will be undermined. The hon. Gentleman referred to the European Union upgrade suspension. Let me make the position clear. Neither the European Commission nor the European Union more widely has made any decision on the future of the EU-Israel relationship. The context of the EU-Israel upgrade, as set out in the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in December, was that a backdrop of continued progress on the middle east peace process was important in parallel. The European Union will in due course rightly revisit the question of the upgrade, given that the context has clearly changed, but I strongly believe that for the present we should focus all our energies on securing and sustaining the ceasefire.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked for reassurance on arms sales. Let me repeat what the Foreign Secretary said in the Chamber on Monday. Several Members referred to the arms embargos of 1982 and 1994, but they were established before the consolidated criteria introduced by the Government post-1997. We have some of the toughest arms export controls in the world. We do refuse export licences when we believe that they would be used for the purpose of internal repression or external aggression. I know that to be the case: as a Minister, I have refused such applications. We assess applications against the risk of licences being used in operations such as Operation Cast Lead. I think that that provides the reassurance that Members have sought.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) presented some powerful arguments in support of Israeli citizens who have been and are under constant rocket onslaught. I say to her, as a friend, that I do not think she helps the legitimate cause that she advocates by sidestepping the genuine horror that members of all parties feel about the loss of 300 innocent children, and the absolute necessity for Israel to do everything possible to avoid such deaths.
	I recognise the passionate commitment of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) on these issues. I am not arguing on the basis of equivalence in terms of loss of life—we have made clear our view that the Israeli response has been disproportionate—but I think that the right hon. Lady does her argument a major disservice if she downplays and underrepresents the impact of the rocket attacks on the state of Israel, involving 6,000 rockets affecting 10 per cent. of the Israeli population. A number of Members have been there and have experienced that. Anyone who sees it on a daily basis will know that it undoubtedly has an impact. We must address that problem as part of the solution that we seek.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) spoke of the importance of community cohesion. I pay tribute to the work that he did on this issue when he was a Minister. He highlighted his concern that what is happening will lead to greater levels of anti-Semitism and radicalisation. I acknowledge that that is a real concern. The Foreign Secretary and I, and Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, have been talking to community groups in the last two weeks. I urge all Members to help us make clear what we are doing to try to assist in this situation; we are making the strongest possible calls for a ceasefire—we are leading the way at the UN and using every ounce of political and diplomatic capital at our disposal to try to achieve that ceasefire. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that there is no durable military solution to the situation in Gaza.
	I welcomed the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden). He demonstrated his enormous concern for the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza, but he also recognised that the launch of rockets into southern Israel is unacceptable—and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that the word "unacceptable" does not do justice to the genuine concerns that people have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield also asked about the national unity Government. The British Government will do everything we can to bring that about, and we welcome the prospect of Hamas—signed up to a non-violent path, and recognising the state of Israel—being part of that national unity Government. Palestinian reconciliation was at the forefront of resolution 1860.
	The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) raised the issue of the United States abstention. Let me be clear—the Foreign Secretary said this in the Chamber on Monday—that we put forward that resolution and we would have preferred the United States to have voted for it. Nevertheless, a reading of the explanation of the vote from Condoleezza Rice makes it clear that the United States did support the intentions of that resolution. To be blunt, in similar situations in previous circumstances, we might well have faced a veto, and the fact that we did not is, I think, in part due to our efforts and the leadership we gave on this issue.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is a strong supporter of Israel, and in that respect I very much welcome his call for the implementation of resolution 1860 by both Hamas and Israel. One of the things that need to happen in the current situation is that the Government of Israel must listen to their friends throughout the international community.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) made a powerful address in which she asked me questions about the ceasefire, and stated the need for it to be sustainable and to address all the key issues. I can certainly give her the confirmation that that is what we are looking for. She also asked about allegations of human rights abuses, and I repeat what I have said earlier: serious allegations have been addressed to both sides, and it is vital that they are properly examined and that we get to the bottom of them.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) rightly underlined the fact that what is happening in Gaza is a tragedy for all concerned—Gazans, the Israelis, President Abbas, and all of us in the international community. I also wholly agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the confidence that is a necessary precondition for a peace process has potentially been shattered by what is happening at present, and that is why the situation is so serious.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) demonstrated his understanding of these issues, referring to the tunnels going from one family home to another. That is why the smuggling issue is so serious and so difficult for us to resolve. He also made the comment, which is worth repeating, that President-elect Barack Obama is not a miracle worker. My spirits were lifted beyond the roof when he was elected—I will remember that night for the rest of my life—but I say in all sincerity that no democratically elected politician could fulfil the aspirations that exist both in the United States of America and in the whole of the international community, and we need to ensure that we are not, of our own volition, sadly disillusioned, because the problems we are dealing with are incredibly difficult.
	We have had a good debate, which has demonstrated that there is concern in all parts of the House. The Government will continue to do everything in their power through advocacy and diplomacy and at the UN to try to get us to that ceasefire that is so desperately needed.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)) .

CYPRUS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn .—(Mr. Blizzard.)

Andrew Dismore: We move from one long-standing international problem to another: Cyprus. First, I should declare my interest: I visited Cyprus at the end of November and in early December, when some of my expenses were met by the Cyprus House of Representatives. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe is about to visit Cyprus next month, so I hope that today's discussion will help to inform her visit.
	Almost a year ago, the Republic of Cyprus elected a new President, President Christofias of AKEL. That was probably a surprise to many, but it was also a pleasant one to many. Two thirds of Greek Cypriots voted for one of the two pro-solution candidates in those elections, and that sends a powerful message that Greek Cypriots, as well as Turkish Cypriots, want a solution. Before I go into the detail of my remarks, I should pay tribute to the late President, Tassos Papadopoulos, who died on 15 December. Although we in the UK may have had fundamental disagreements with him, I think we would all recognise that he always had the best interests of his country at heart. He was a key figure in Cyprus's struggle against colonialism in the 1950s, the youngest Minister in the Makarios Government in the 1960s and a President who was elected for one term, but who achieved a great deal in bringing Cyprus's membership of the European Union forward and, indeed, its membership of the euro.
	President Christofias's election means that for the first time the leaderships on both sides of the green line are committed to finding a solution—Mr. Talat is the Turkish Cypriot leader. Both they and their respective parties—AKEL and the CTP—have a long association. On 21 March 2008, Mr. Christofias mounted a new initiative, launching a preparatory phase of a new dialogue with the Turkish Cypriots. On 25 July, the decision was made to translate that into fully-fledged negotiations, and on 3 September the two leaders began face-to-face talks, meeting on an almost weekly basis. This year, they have met on 5 and 12 January, and are due to meet again tomorrow. Despite ups and downs, the atmosphere is a constructive one. The issues have been divided into six chapters: governance and power sharing; property; the EU; the economy; territory; and security. Each of those is then subdivided, with United Nations assistance, into one of three categories: agreed issues; those close to agreement to be decided by the negotiators—Ozdil Nami for the Turkish Cypriots and George Iacovou for the Greek Cypriots; and those that cannot be agreed as yet. I regret to say that far too many are in the latter two baskets, rather than in the first.
	On 5 January, agreement was reached on harmonisation and co-operation between the proposed federal Government of constituent states, and Friday's will be the last discussions on that first chapter. The next discussions will address property issues—one of the most difficult and intractable questions on the island. Progress remains slow overall. On 14 January, Mr. Christofias said that
	"despite our intensive efforts, after four months' work...I do not have real progress to report...A number of secondary issues have been agreed but"—
	there—
	"remain, however, significant differences of approach."
	Nevertheless, he has expressed confidence that a result can be achieved, there are no artificial deadlines to the process and neither side wishes to walk out of the negotiations. However, there still seems to be no real meeting of minds on the endgame.
	The process is much more political than before and less legalistic, and that has to be welcomed, but people do get hung up on words such as "federation" and "confederation", without analysing what they mean in terms of where on the scale of the division of powers between the central state and the constituent parties the balance should be placed.
	The UN is playing a constructive role, with a special representative, Taye-Brook Zerihoun, who tells me that he is "paid to be optimistic". The UN Secretary-General's special adviser, the former Australian Foreign Secretary, Alexander Downer, has also played a constructive role. The UN approach is to work towards a framework agreement—not a detailed one, such as Annan 5, which failed—to try to build trust and confidence as the process continues. On 10 January, Mr. Downer said that there was momentum and that he was cautiously optimistic. He said that the process needed to be owned not by the UN or the international community, but by the people of Cyprus, and that the solution would have to be put to the people, and it should not be one drawn up by foreigners. He is a politician who understands the need to have an outcome acceptable to both communities in a referendum.
	As always, the key to progress in Cyprus is to be found in Ankara. Turkey is now a member of the United Nations Security Council and in June it takes over its presidency. It will be scrutinised more closely as a Security Council member and soon-to-be president, and it will need to be part of the Security Council's consensus. Bearing in mind also that Cyprus is a recognised member of the UN, Turkey will have to discuss these issues with Cyprus's permanent representative to the UN.
	Turkey and the EU will seek to review the accession process this year. Turkey has failed completely to implement the Ankara protocol dealing with relations with Cyprus. Ali Erel, the chairman of the Cyprus-EU Association and a respected Turkish Cypriot, says that Turkey is spoilt by the EU. At the end of last year, the Turkish navy harassed the Republic of Cyprus's survey ships which were operating in accordance with the international law of the sea in the exclusive economic zone, looking for oil and other resources that would ultimately be for the benefit of all Cypriots. That cannot be allowed and we have to condemn it. It will inevitably lead to reciprocal action by Cyprus, disrupting the energy chapter in Turkey's accession process, if that is to proceed.
	Turkey remains in military occupation of northern Cyprus, with an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 troops. UNFICYP puts the figure towards the bottom end of that bracket, but Turkey could reduce troop numbers with no risk to security in the north, and should do so as a confidence-building measure. We understand that there is a new general in charge of the north, General Zorlu, who has a long history of participating in peacekeeping operations, and that has to be a positive sign for Cyprus.
	The Turkish Cypriot economy is very weak. It is founded on casinos and nightclubs, with a property boom based on Greek Cypriot land that has now come to a juddering halt. The Turkish Cypriot economy has seen minus 5 per cent. growth and it would be bankrupt without the subsidy from Turkey of 14 per cent. of its budget. Some 39 per cent. of that budget is spent on public sector pay. Turkey is now getting tough with a wage freeze, but this position cannot be sustained. We need real progress for the benefit of Turkish Cypriots.
	The EU has given €259 million in aid to northern Cyprus to bring it closer to Europe and to facilitate settlement, but that money has been disbursed extremely slowly. By October last year, less than half—€119 million—had been tendered, and only €60 million, or half of that, had been contracted. Less than half of that— €25.5 million or only 10 per cent. of the total—had actually been spent. That is not TRNC money: it is EU money that should be spent for the benefit of Turkish Cypriots.
	I was pleased to meet the new EU Head of Representation, Androulla Kaminara, when I was in Cyprus. She was very impressive. Unlike her predecessor, she is prepared to travel to the north, and she is working hard to involve Turkish Cypriots in a greater understanding of the EU and what it can achieve for northern Cyprus. However, the area needs much greater understanding of how the EU operates. For example, one of the logjams in the negotiations was the issue of the central bank. The northern Cypriots wanted to have their own central bank, which would not be possible through EU membership—showing a lack of understanding of how the EU operates.
	We need more confidence-building measures, which maintain confidence when slow progress is made in the talks and little information is coming out. A good example of that was the opening of the Ledra street crossing on 3 April. That created a groundswell of good feeling towards the process. On behalf of the Turkish Cypriots, Mr. Talat says that the concentration should be on a comprehensive solution and he is not too impressed by confidence-building measures. Of course, there will be difficulties in implementing some of them unilaterally because of the thorny issue of possible recognition of the north. One possibility would be to work through NGOs. For example, the trade issue was solved through the intervention of the Turkish Cypriot chamber of commerce as facilitator.
	"We need to create and promote a culture of friendship and mutual trust, and admit the mistakes and crimes both communities committed in the past."
	That is a quotation from only a few weeks ago from Stephanos Stephanou, the presidential spokesman for the republic.
	Confidence-building measures could include some of the 16 recommendations agreed by the technical committee. They include measures on crime-fighting, the economy, cultural heritage, crisis management, humanitarian health issues and the environment, which could form the basis of confidence-building measures that would improve the daily lives of all Cypriots. I would like my hon. Friend to describe what we are doing to promote those ideas.
	Crossing points are vital. The Ledra street crossing is open, and I have visited it. It was interesting to see what has been achieved, but the buildings need restoration and disengagement is also necessary. The Turkish military are not playing a constructive role in that respect. We need to see the crossing at Limnitis opened, but that has become bogged down in a bogus argument about the enclave at Kokkina, which is now solely occupied by Turkish troops and has no Turkish Cypriot civilians. President Christofias has said that there is a possibility for Turkish Cypriot civilians to cross into Kokkina, but not military supplies or traffic. The crossing is vital because hours are added to the journeys of Greek Cypriots travelling to that region.
	The Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus is working well and is not politicised by either side. I visited the laboratory for the second time and was very impressed by the progress that is being made. There have been 466 exhumations so far and 110 sets of remains have been returned—78 to Greek Cypriots and 32 to Turkish Cypriots. The annual budget for the committee and its work is $3 million a year. In the three years from 2004 to 2007, we donated £160,000. We ought to consider further payments because the committee needs those extra bilateral donations. Altogether, some 2,000 Cypriots are missing from each side—1,493 from 1974 and 503 from 1963-64. There is still a lot of work to be done and there are at least two years of exhumations to go. It is one of the very good bi-communal projects on the island, with Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots working side by side in the laboratory and on the sites that are being excavated.
	De-mining is also important for confidence building. The United Nations Development Programme has cleared 51 minefields. That has largely been funded by the EU but there is a €5 million shortfall. That money will be needed to clear the rest of the zone, and the UN says that it could do it if it had the money. We could help by making a donation towards that. The buffer zone occupies 3 per cent. of the land. If that land could be liberated from the mines and from that part of the process, it would be available for civilian use, which could help towards a settlement.
	Education on the island is also important. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet Mrs. Olympia Stylianou, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Culture in the republic. The emphasis now is on the creation of a culture of peaceful cohabitation and trying to create an inclusive Cypriot national identity. The history books in the north have been revised and the Greek Cypriots are revising theirs, too, with a committee of experts due to put forward a first draft of the new curriculum in the summer. There is progress on learning Turkish in the south, although there needs to be more similar work done in the north.
	The Agios Antonios bi-communal school in the south, which I visited last year, is working very well and we need to see secondary provision, too. At Rizokarpasso school, I am pleased to see, we are no longer seeing censorship of school books and it follows the Greek Cypriot curriculum. Again, progress has been made.
	Civil society is improving, but there is still a lot to do. AKEL and the CTP have significantly improved their contacts, which is important progress.
	On trade, the Turkish Cypriot economy is controlled by Turkish business. Green line trade is starting to work, but still amounts to less than 5 per cent. of the exports from north to south. There is still pressure on those from the north not to use ports in the republic.
	The benefits of a settlement are clear: €5,500 per household for each of the first seven years after the solution. That would make a big difference to the living standards of all Cypriots. The process is open-ended, but will it make progress? Turkish Cypriot elections are due on 19 April, and Turkish Cypriot presidential elections the following year. We have the review of the Turkish accession this year. The facts on the ground are vital in that context.
	Increasing numbers of settlers in the north are a problem. We still do not know how many there are, although there have been various estimates. Some have suggested to me that only 100,000 Turkish Cypriots are left in the total population of the north. The teachers union in the north has estimated that only 3 per cent. of the children attending schools in the north are of Turkish Cypriot origin. That shows a significant increase in the number of settlers. Some 93 per cent. of hospital patients in the north are settlers, although that could be because Turkish Cypriots are making use of the hospitals in the south, as they are entitled to.
	Mosque building in the north is also significantly on the increase. I saw that with my own eyes when I visited and it is a matter of great seriousness.
	The property issue remains. Building on Greek Cypriot land has slowed down due to the recession, but its extent has been serious, particularly since the Annan failure, and the territorial implications for a settlement in Morphou, for example, are serious. The Turkish Cypriot property commission has now received 729 applications from Greek Cypriots, but the question of the adequacy of that process as a remedy for cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights has yet to be decided. Some 41 cases have been finalised. That shows that some Greek Cypriots, at least, are starting to despair of the possibility of a settlement.
	There has been a reduction in the number of green line crossings. They are half what they were two years ago. The sovereign base areas do not keep any statistics for the crossings, and it would be helpful if they did so to ensure that we have a full picture.
	Turkish Cypriots are increasingly claiming their political rights in the republic. Some have tried to claim their voting rights. Sener Levent, the editor of the newspaper  Afrika, has told me that he plans to stand in the republic for one of the European Parliament seats in the summer. Cases have been brought before the European Court on the issue.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister knows that just before Christmas we had a debate on the Foreign Affairs Committee's human rights report. On that occasion, I brought to the attention of the House a number of serious human rights issues affecting Cypriots. Of course the general issues are well known; there is deprivation of property and expropriation in the north, refusal to allow people to return to their homes, and uninvestigated deaths from 1963, 1974 and many other conflicts. That is an important issue.
	I urge my right hon. Friend to go to Karpas and see the enclaved people who live there. I visited it for the second time in autumn. They are living under significant oppression in what can only be described as a police state. They have no right to own a business; their property is exposed to being appropriated; and homes are in poor condition and are sometimes knocked down when people are away. People there live in extreme poverty and destitution, and the UN has talked about the hampering of its humanitarian and monitoring efforts for the people of Karpas by the Turkish army. It is a very serious problem, and we are not taking it seriously enough. There are only a few hundred people left there, and the number is declining.
	The Maronites are also enclaved in the north. There are four Maronite villages and only 142 people left there. One village, Agia Marina, is an army camp, and visiting the church there is not allowed. I went to the barrier, and we were politely refused access. In Asomatos, people are allowed to visit the church for only a couple of hours every Sunday, and they are not allowed to ring the church bell. Visits to the churches at Agios Mamas and Morphou were not allowed, either. Apostolos Andreas in Karpas badly needs repairs, and when I went there on the night before St. Andrew's day—my day, as it were—the police had intervened to stop the bell being rung there, too. That is not appropriate.
	A whole raft of court cases brought against Turkey are working their way through the European Court. My right hon. Friend knows that I have asked parliamentary questions about that. I understand from her answers that she is not prepared to comment further while those cases are proceeding, but that is a pity. What should our Government do? Obviously we have to support the efforts of both sides. We should not get involved in the way that we did with the Annan plan; the process has to be bottom-up. It should be from the Cypriots, by the Cypriots and for the Cypriots.
	We should encourage confidence-building measures. In particular, we should put our hand in our pocket for the missing persons initiative and de-mining activities. We should consider the future of the sovereign base areas land. At the right time, we will need to give appropriate indications that the deal on offer in the Annan plan will be on offer again. We also need to look at the future of the treaty of guarantee in those circumstances.
	To conclude, if the current Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders, given their long personal and political history of co-operation together, cannot achieve a result, it is unlikely that anyone will. Neither side has a plan B; that would be reverting to the status quo, which, as time goes by, simply entrenches division. Both sides need to be flexible in the process. They may well have tactical positions, but we need a breakthrough. Although we can never say that the negotiations are the last chance, if they fail, any new effort will mean starting from a far worse position. We are pretty well drinking in the last chance taverna in Cyprus, and I hope that the negotiations between two people who have good will towards each other's communities will bear fruit.

Caroline Flint: It is a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and I congratulate him on securing this debate. I welcome his interest in Cyprus, which is extremely wide-ranging, as I saw from the 47 parliamentary questions that he tabled before Christmas. I hope that the responses have been helpful. I think that we have one or two, or perhaps three, left to respond to. I also welcome the high level of parliamentary interest in Cyprus, which comes often, but not exclusively, from those Members with a large number of Cypriot constituents.
	As my hon. Friend said, the current round of talks is probably the best opportunity that there has ever been to solve the Cyprus problem. A solution is essential for the peace and prosperity of the whole region. First and importantly, it will create a better future for the people of Cyprus. The UN green line cuts through the island like a scar, and I think that we all agree that the division has gone on for far too long. It is in everyone's interest that the next generation does not grow up knowing only division, buffer zones and peacekeepers.
	Both communities will gain from the political, economic and social benefits of a settlement. For Greek Cypriots, a solution will offer stability and security as well as the chance to recover their property. Turkish Cypriots will be able to reach their economic potential by fully realising the advantages, and sharing the responsibilities, of EU membership. We all want Cyprus to thrive as a united country within the EU.
	In their negotiations, the two leaders, President Christofias and Mr. Talat, have an opportunity to reunite the island. The weight of history is on their shoulders, and we share with the rest of the international community an expectation that everyone with a stake in resolving the issue will remain engaged, positive and supportive, and that that very real opportunity will be seized.
	We are committed in the UK to doing all that we can to assist all the parties in the process of finding a settlement for Cypriots, by Cypriots. I have made that one of my top personal priorities. Indeed, in my first week in my job, I went to Cyprus and met the leaders, as well as Alexander Downer, the UN special envoy to Cyprus. I plan to visit again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon suggested, in the next few weeks to reiterate my support for the negotiations.

Andrew Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for her visit and, indeed, for her forthcoming visit. When she goes to the island, she will see once again the commitment of both communities to finding a solution that will end the division of the island. However, the negotiations and discussions have stalled, because not everyone who should be participating is doing so. Would she find the time when she is in Nicosia to visit Ankara and Athens, so that we can bring together all the guarantor powers to ensure that everyone is on the same side in finding a solution for the island?

Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I pay tribute to his long-standing interest and concern about the area. I visited Ankara just before Christmas, and made our views known to our Turkish colleagues about the important role that they can play in creating a positive atmosphere for those talks. Although those talks are difficult, I was pleased that shortly after assuming my post—and I am not saying that this is down to me, by any stretch of the imagination—regular weekly meetings resumed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon suggested, there have been two in the past two weeks, and another is due tomorrow. Building momentum is important, and whether it is in Ankara or in Athens, or elsewhere in the EU or in the world—my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) mentioned the US in this regard earlier this week—it is about being supportive of the process and seeing how we can further ensure that the talks are successful. Turkey, as I said, has a particularly important role to play, and it has much to gain. It certainly impressed on me its positive messages, and in making those messages, we expect it to fulfil its obligations under the accession process, including on the Ankara protocol.
	In the time that is left, I shall try to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. With regard to oil exploration, we have made our expectations and views clear to Turkey. We continue to urge restraint, as further escalation would be counter-productive. As a signatory to the UN convention on the law of the sea, the Republic of Cyprus is within its rights to explore for oil and natural resources in its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone. Given the heightened importance of energy security, it is in our strong interests that discussions on the energy chapter in Turkey's EU negotiations should proceed. We regret that that is not happening at present, and that some recent incidents, including the harassment of oil exploration vessels off the coast of the Republic of Cyprus, have made forward momentum more difficult. Given the current energy situation, there is a great opportunity for Turkey to demonstrate the positive role that it can play in tackling those issues.
	My hon. Friend mentioned EU funding. While implementation of the regulations has been slower than anticipated, the benefits are already being felt. Again, that is something that could be stepped up in the months ahead. I totally support confidence-building measures, which play an important role, and that is why we greatly welcomed the cancelling of military exercises and parades in October and November. However, more can be done. Crossing points have been shown to increase inter-communal dialogue and trade between local businesses. It is clearly important that communities that are no more than a few hundred metres apart, but which had little daily contact for 34 years, are opened up to each other for the benefit of all. I hope progress can soon be made on the Limnitis crossing, and that is certainly something that I shall raise when I am on the island to see whether progress can be made.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon asked about missing persons, and I can tell him that the Government fully support the work of the committee on missing persons. We donate to its budget both through the EU and directly, and hope that it can continue to work in an uninhibited way to build confidence on the island.
	It is also important that the necessary funds are found to secure the sustainability of a settlement on the island. The committee on missing persons and other issues are clearly going to be important matters for discussion in the future by the UK, the UN and the EU, as we must make sure that any settlement that might be forthcoming is sustainable.
	I am also aware of the key work done by UN development programme staff in removing land mines in the buffer zone. That work is supported by both the Government and the EU. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, I am concerned about the shortfall in funding for the mining action centre in 2009, and I agree that its important work should continue. I have been discussing the matter here in the UK this week, and it is also due to be discussed in Brussels and in Nicosia. We will explore what might be possible, and I shall be happy to keep my hon. Friend and others informed of developments.
	I am also concerned about the continuing appropriation of, and construction on, land owned by Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus. Our high commission in Nicosia regularly raises the issue with the Turkish Cypriot leadership. We must ensure that the matter is resolved if a comprehensive settlement is to be secured.
	I am aware of the difficulties faced by Greek Cypriot communities in the northern part of Cyprus. They are living in enclaves as a result of the political situation on the island and the presence of Turkish troops in the north. I am also aware of the continued difficulties faced by the Maronite community in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon described some of the factors that mean that people are unable to worship or pray in their local churches, but I hope that discussing these problems will mean that we can make progress. It is really important that all Cypriots on the island feel that they have a stake in their future, and that these matters can be resolved.
	I turn now to the question of the sovereign base areas, some issues relating to which may arise during the negotiations. As I said earlier, we will be ready to discuss these at the appropriate time. The future of the treaty of guarantee will also feature in the negotiations and, as one of the guarantor powers, the UK will be ready to discuss that at the appropriate time. We will certainly not stand in the way of an agreement on this issue.
	As a result of the diaspora, there is a large Cypriot community in the UK totalling something like 300,000 people. They also have an important role to play in supporting the settlement negotiations, in which I know that they take a very keen interest. I have been in contact with a number of Cypriot diaspora groups and their media, and am committed to maintaining and developing strong relationships with both communities. That is absolutely essential.
	I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon for raising this issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton for attending the debate. Also, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce) for serving on the Bench behind me. I know that he too takes an interest in these matters.
	It would be particularly helpful if all of us with an interest in this subject could work together towards the goal of a reunited island. It will not be easy, but this is an opportunity that must be seized. For my part, I look forward to discussing this further with hon. Members, and to working together in support of a settlement.
	The present financial situation and other problems mean that these are difficult times but, without being over-confident, I think that we can have some hope that progress will be made on this issue and that a division that I believe has gone on for too long for all Cypriots can be brought to an end.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.